TEACHER METACOGNITION:
TEACHER AS CURRICULUM MAKER
WITH METACOGNITION AT THE CENTRE OF THE CLASSROOM

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Education
in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Master of Education
Brandon University
Brandon, Manitoba

by
Barbara D. Engel
August 21, 2020
© Barbara D. Engel, 2020
All rights reserved

ii

Abstract
This study examined teacher awareness and teacher use of metacognitive practices in
Canadian schools within Manitoba. The literature on teacher metacognition was limited because
the majority of the literature centred on student metacognition and there was a call for more
research regarding teacher metacognition. Four participants from urban and rural Manitoban
schools, who had taken Reading Apprenticeship (RA) training, were interviewed in this narrative
inquiry. This research created reflective stories through an analysis of transcripts of interviews.
The Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) tool activated the participants’ thinking, which
helped to tune their reflections and the qualitative transcripts of the interviews, revealing trends
in metacognitive vocabulary and reflective story. The primary research question was as follows:
How does a teacher’s understanding of metacognition influence the development of
metacognitive skills and metacognitive conversations in classroom practices and routines?
The participants’ reflections highlighted six threads of teacher practices, employing
metacognitive strategies and metacognitive conversations in the classroom that helped to
increase their perceptions of student achievement. The analysis wove together the three main
ways teachers influence their students’ metacognition, as found in the literature review, with the
six threads of teacher metacognitive practices that were found in the current research. This
created four unique tapestries revealing evidence that the teachers’ understanding of
metacognition can influence the development of metacognitive skills in their practices and
routines.
The conclusion is that a teacher’s awareness around metacognitive strategies did
influence the participants’ decision making within planning, classroom set up, and daily routines.
Therefore, a teacher’s understanding of metacognition can influence the development of

iii

metacognitive skills and metacognitive conversations in classroom practices and routines. This
research suggests that collaborative work around improving metacognitive strategies and
conversations within the classroom would greatly benefit teachers’ personal practical knowledge.
Therefore, more training is recommended to help to solidify and improve the use of
metacognitive strategies and conversations, increasing the personal practical knowledge of
teachers. It is recommended that secondary institutions' courses and professional development
opportunities within the school divisions of Manitoba build collaborative efficacy around
implementing metacognitive strategies. This study's results have reinforced the fact that
metacognitive strategies and conversations can be successful agents in helping students achieve
higher quality standards from the teachers' perspectives. However, further research is
recommended that includes teachers who have not taken RA training; more extensive studies are
required to seek teachers’ understanding of metacognitive practices.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am grateful for all the support and guidance that my thesis advisor, Dr. Marion Terry,
has given me over the years of writing and learning. She has inspired me to write, and she has
given advice that has fortified my confidence and determination. I would also like to thank
Brandon University’s Education Department for its learning environment and dedication to
inclusion, especially Dr. Cameron Symons, and Dr. Jackie Kirk as they have strengthened my
foundation and helped to focus my inquiry. I would also like to acknowledge all my cohort
colleagues and instructors as you all created the learning community within Brandon University
that facilitated me to become a better version of myself.
I would like to acknowledge the school division that gave me permission to conduct my
research. I was inspired by the professional development I received through this division,
through the Reading Apprenticeship Training. In particular, I would like to acknowledge Leanne
Braun and Shauna Hamm for your instruction and inspiration around metacognition.
I am also so thankful for each of the four participants who participated in this research
inquiry. Your willingness to share your metacognitive journey made this research project come
alive. I am thankful for the reflective nature you brought to your stories. I am grateful for your
passion for engaging in metacognition with students and colleagues, seeking individual growth
in yourself, and your students. I am ultimately thankful for your openness and willingness to be
vulnerable and honest with me.
Lastly, I wish to acknowledge Stephen Lewis and Kim Carter. You have always believed
in my abilities, and more importantly, you always push me to be diligent.

v

Table of Contents
Abstract
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv
Chapter One: Background to the Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
About the Researcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
The Importance of Teacher Metacognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
The Reading Apprenticeship Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The Purpose and the Question. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The Significance to the Field. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
The Researcher’s Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Conceptual Metaphor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Definitions of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Metacognition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Metacognitive Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
The metacognitive funnel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Talking to the text.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Think-a-loud.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Double-entry logs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
LINK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Summary of the Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

vi

Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Thesis Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Chapter Two: Analysis of the Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Defining Terms: Cognition, Metacognition and Personal Practical Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Cognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
The Language of Metacognition and Personal Practical Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Metacognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Personal Practical Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Reading Apprenticeship Framework: Teachers’ Thinking about Making Thinking Visible . . . . 20
Criteria for Quality Experiences of Metacognition in Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Social Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Personal Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Cognitive Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Knowledge-Building Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Three Teacher Practices That Influence Student Metacognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Teachers’ Modelling Their Thinking Supports Students’ Understanding. . . . . . . . . . . . .31
Teacher Awareness of Reading Strategies Broaden the Reading Experience for
Students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Teacher Understanding of Self-Regulated Learning Shapes a Metacognitive Space
for Students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Gaps in the Research on Teacher Metacognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Possibilities for This Current Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

vii

Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Chapter Three: The Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Epistemological and Ontological Stance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Narrative Inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
The Research Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
The Research Problem and Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Ethical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Data Storage and Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
The Research Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Phase One of Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Metacognitive Awareness Inventory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
Prelude reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
Prelude reflection prompts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
The phase one package included . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Phase Two of Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
A list of metacognitive strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
A journal package with prompts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
The phase two package included . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Phase Three of Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
Phase three package included . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

viii

Phase Four of Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
The Quota Purposive Sample Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
The Qualitative Analysis of the Narratives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Chapter Four: The Research Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Research Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
Addison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Bradan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Christopher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Daniella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Interview Narratives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Question One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Addison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Bradan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Christopher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Daniella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Question Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
Addison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Bradan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Christopher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Daniella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

ix

Question Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Addison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Bradan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Christopher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Daniella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Question Four . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Addison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Bradan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Christopher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74
Daniella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Question Five . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Addison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Bradan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Christopher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Daniella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Question Six . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Addison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Bradan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Christopher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Daniella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Question Seven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Addison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Bradan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

x

Christopher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Daniella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Question Eight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Addison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Bradan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Christopher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Daniella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Question Nine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Addison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89
Bradan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89
Christopher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90
Daniella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90
Question Ten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90
Addison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91
Bradan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91
Christopher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92
Daniella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Chapter Five: Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Weaving the Tapestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
First Thread: Teachers are reading students for learning by activating existing schema . 96
Second Thread: Teachers are more explicit regarding student learning goals. . . . . . . . . .98

xi

Third Thread: Teachers are checking for understanding as a formative assessment. . . . .100
Fourth Thread: Teachers are asking more impactful questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101
Fifth Thread: Teachers are creating equality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103
Sixth Thread: Teachers are increasing their awareness and ability to employ gradual
release of learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Chapter Six: Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109
Restating the Purpose and Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109
Main Research Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Conclusion One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Subsequent Question One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Conclusion Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Subsequent Question Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Conclusion Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Recommendations for Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Recommendation for Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Thesis Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130

xii

Appendix C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131
Appendix D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133
Appendix E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135
Appendix F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137
Appendix G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139
Appendix H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140
Appendix I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141
Appendix J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .144
Appendix K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145

xiii

For my family:
My Mom and Dad, Fritz and Helen Engel, who are my roots, grounding me.
My two sons, Weslee and Owen, who are my inspiration and who bring my life happiness.
My husband, Rick Unruh, my forever companion who shares and creates our world of dreams.

xiv

Chapter One:
Background to the Research
This study explored how teachers’ understandings (their abilities to make experience
accessible by applying concepts and categories) of metacognition influences the development of
metacognitive strategies and the metacognitive conversations within the classroom to deepen
knowledge in their students. Chapter One introduces me as the researcher, explores the
importance of teacher metacognition, explains the Reading Apprenticeship Framework (RAF)
for the research, outlines the purpose and the question, states the significance to the field, defines
my stance as narrative inquirer, explains the theoretical framework and the conceptual metaphor,
defines relevant terms, and concludes with the thesis overview.
About the Researcher
When I came into the landscape of teaching English, I was not a novice teacher.
However, I was novice in the subject area of English pedagogy and in knowing the best practices
in the English language classroom. Professional development was occurring for me at every
English department meeting, as I listened to my fellow colleagues discuss their choices and
knowledge of literature. A reoccurring issue that stumped all around our proverbial professional
development table was the increasing gap in the reading abilities of our students in our
classrooms.
A high school colleague said, “I don’t know how to teach children to read!”
I remember asking, “How do you learn new vocabulary yourself?”
The colleague answered, “I just do it! I don’t know “how” I do it! I have always been
able to read and comprehend what I read.”

1

It was in this moment that I realized how I was different. I struggled to learn how to
read. In grade three, I was almost two years behind my peers regarding my reading level. My
formative reading years were full of tutors, extra lessons after school, and much time spent on
homework with my father because I could not complete most work in the time allotted in the
classroom. In short, I worked hard at developing reading skills, and many experts modelled
strategies that have helped me to understand how I comprehended my reading. Now, after years
of working in the English department, I realize that my struggles in reading are what made me
aware of my reading habits, and that I have used metacognitive strategies all my life. Therefore,
I am able to model and share these learning moments strategically with my students. Upon
reflecting on the literature in Chapter Two, I believe that my story is not the norm. When I took
the Reading Apprenticeship training, my reading struggles gave me a very vivid existing schema
in which I built my professional development, creating pedagogy that transformed my teaching
stance which focused on keeping metacognition at the centre of my classroom.
My focus on metacognition has extended into my leadership roles within my school
division. As an informal literacy leader, and vice-principal, I held a broad view of reading that
can be defined as looking at text (a poster, a commercial, a map, a graph, a school textbook, a
novel, a poem, etc.) and making connections (text to self, text to text, and text to world). With
this broad definition of reading comes a belief that subject-specific teachers have subject-specific
criteria associated with unique reading strategies that need to be shared with students. My
perspective as an administrator is that educational leaders must support teachers’ development of
metacognitive strategies and metacognitive conversations in the classroom.

2

The Importance of Teacher Metacognition
Metacognition is the process of thinking about one’s thinking (Schoenbach, Green &
Murphy, 2012, p. 26). It is a process that requires mindfulness and an awareness that is
sometimes overlooked or not noted by individuals. Larson (2009) noted,
Conscious awareness provides the possibility to the individual for analytic processing of
information represented in it in a top down mode of information processing that is
selective and can give direction and new sequencing of cognitive
schemas/procedures/strategies for solving novel problems or for overcoming impasses in
automatic processing due to conflict of response or error. (p. 137)
It is for this reason that a teachers’ awareness of their metacognition is so important. If teachers
are to be active agents of deeper understanding within their students, then the teachers’
knowledge and awareness of metacognition is an essential factor when they make choices about
best practices based on the responses they hear and read from their students. Understanding how
teachers listen, and how they process students’ demonstrations of understanding and then
develop next steps for students, is crucial to student achievement. Hattie (2009) described
learning as “spontaneous, individualistic, and often earned through effort. It is a timeworn, slow
and gradual, fits-and-starts kind of process, which can have a flow of its own, but requires
passion, patience, and attention to detail” from the teacher and the students (p. 2). Hattie
developed this idea of learning as “the more the student becomes the teacher and the more the
teacher becomes the learner, then the more successful are the outcomes” (p. 25). Thus, unveiling
the mystery of what and how teachers are thinking can reveal reasoning and purposeful
connections to their practices and next steps that encourage student success. Making the
teachers’ thinking visible through their use of metacognitive conversations and metacognitive

3

strategies with students is the focus of the RAF, and therefore the RAF has been selected to
support the current study.
The Reading Apprenticeship Framework
The RAF “is an organizing paradigm for subject area teaching, one that enables students
to approach challenging academic texts more strategically, confidently, and successfully”
(Schoenbach et al., 2012, pp 2-3). The RAF uses the metacognitive conversation and other
metacognitive strategies alongside Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development: “the distance
between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the
level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in
collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1979, p. 86). The metacognitive
conversation and metacognitive strategies elicit this desired effect of empowering students to
activate the tracking of their thinking. This study promotes a positive correlation between
teachers’ reflections on the use of metacognitive strategies and their perceptions of student
achievement.
Research supports that every student has an individual growth rate, and multiple variables
and factors can influence the rate in which students demonstrate growth: schooling, parenting,
and socio-economic backgrounds (Hattie & Yates, 2014, p. 8). Hattie’s 2009 meta-analysis
indicated that implementing metacognitive strategies into the classroom had an effect size of
0.69, which places it high on the barometer of influences (pp. 188-189). Determining whether
metacognitive conversation/strategies are making a difference in the success of our students is at
the centre of this study. Therefore, developing an understanding of how teachers understand
metacognition is imperative. It is a goal to maximize the growth rate/knowledge building by
providing excellence in best practices used with students. Discovering more about teachers’

4

understanding of metacognition may influence instruction that leads students to recognize the
power of metacognition which impacts their reading and their knowledge building. For this
reason, the setting of the study was chosen in order to find participants who have participated in
the professional development of the RAF, a framework that upholds the development of the
metacognitive conversation within the classroom.
The Purpose and the Question
This study explored how the teachers’ understanding of metacognition influenced the
development of metacognitive strategies and the metacognitive conversation, as they
implemented these practices into their classroom intending to develop more in-depth knowledge
within their students. Because this study focused on metacognition, it was my goal to activate
the participants' metacognitive voice, using the methodology of a narrative inquiry, which is
outlined explicitly in Chapter Three. This study did not include the students’ voices but looked
at the teachers’ perceptions of student achievement. This study centered on each teacher
participant’s voice to understand better how metacognitive conversations and metacognitive
strategies impact a student’s ability to build knowledge from the perspective of the teacher. The
study explored whether a teacher’s understanding of metacognitive conversations/strategies
affected a teacher’s perspective of knowledge building in students. This stance elicited the
research question,
•

How does a teacher’s understanding of metacognition influence the development of
metacognitive skills and metacognitive conversations in classroom practices and
routines?

Subsequent questions were as follows:

5

•

How does this awareness help to influence the teacher’s decision making within
planning, classroom set up, and daily routines?

•

What evidence indicates that the teacher’s understanding of metacognition is making a
positive impact on the teacher’s perception of student learning?

The point of this study was to examine how teachers’ knowledge of metacognition will affect
their perceptions of student achievement and therefore then guide the choices they make
regarding how and why they teach or reteach.
The Significance to the Field
Knowing the impact of the metacognitive conversations/strategies provides support that
can become a qualitative reflection, such that “students are able to catch up in critical reading
skills if provided with additional, sustained instruction in small, focused instructional groups”
(Torgesen, Scammacca, Boardman, & Roberts, 2008, p. 63). Therefore, the results of this study
may have improved teaching methods, improved students’ reading skills, and improved students’
knowledge building. Thus, metacognitive conversations/strategies can be successful agents in
helping students achieve higher quality standards.
The Researcher’s Motivation
As a teacher who has taught at all levels from K-12, interested in literacy within all
subjects, I observed how complicated the reading process is for many students and how this
complicated task interferes with achievement and learning throughout elementary, middle and
high school, causing self-doubt, self-loathing and negative reflection upon students’ abilities.
This lack of self-worth limits successes as students struggle to move forward and establish a
position in a world where reading is highly valued and necessary. Struggling readers measure
their sluggishness and hesitation against the rapid pace and fluency of their teachers, parents,

6

peers, and classmates. I have discovered that when I introduce metacognitive strategies and
conversations to students while they are learning, they break through their barriers and gain
knowledge through reading, regardless of the subject matter. Therefore, I decided to track the
thinking of teachers as they embarked on making an impact on their students’ reading and
knowledge building process in various subject areas.
One may now imagine the nature of chaos (Galbraith, 2004), experienced by a learner
knowing that multiple individuals uphold a status quo that reading is a skill everyone should
attain before high school. What if teachers were more aware? Could their shift in listening and
sharing change the students’ literacy development and impact their learning?
It is apparent that “the need to continue to teach reading as students move up the grade
levels and encounter increasingly complex academic material and tasks is now widely
recognized” (Schoenbach, Greenleaf & Murphy, 2012, p. 18). While proficient readers practice
and master reading skills with ease, struggling readers need to be taught reading strategies to
keep up with classroom activities. Classrooms need to unleash the potential of reciprocal
learning that can uphold the diversity within the classroom. Observations of the spectrum of
readers (struggling reluctant readers and fluent confident readers) must motivate the teacher to
explore how metacognitive conversations and strategies are the keys to developing students’
skills, resulting in increased literacy and therefore deeper understanding by all students within
the spectrum. During this research, I listened for how the metacognitive conversations sounded
and how metacognitive strategies were used, and I wove those narratives together with my
narrative inquiry voice. This research adds to the literature on teacher awareness around
metacognition and its impact within the classroom.

7

Theoretical Framework
The RAF is used as a concrete structure within this research that upholds metacognitive
strategies and conversations. The four participants had taken RAF training. The RAF model
encourages gradual release: teacher demonstrating/modelling, leading to pairs/group sharing of
knowledge/skill, leading to student independently employing metacognition to build new
knowledge (Schoenbach, Greenleaf & Murphy, 2012, p. 132). The framework also provides
research based on pedagogy that supports social-emotional learning with a four-dimension
foundation: social dimension, personal dimension, cognitive dimension, and knowledge-building
dimension. Further details are captured in Chapter Two’s review of the literature.
Conceptual Metaphor
This study focused on teacher metacognition. My goal was to activate the participants'
metacognitive voice, using the methodology of a narrative inquiry. As I read many articles for
the literature review and then listened to my participants’ many reflections, themes or strands
started to develop. Instead of calling these themes or strands, I chose to reference them as
threads. This study's conceptual metaphor is that of the teacher participants and me weaving
unique tapestries that reveal how their metacognitive awareness influenced their personal
practical knowledge. I used this terminology because it enabled me to think of the threads from
the literature review twisting together within each of the six threads found in the teacher
participants’ stories and reflections. The analysis of the transcripts was similar to discovering
common patterns, made by uniquely woven threads within the tapestry of each participant.
Definitions of Terms
While exploring how metacognitive conversations/strategies can improve literacy, this
paper defines several terms. First is a concise definition of metacognition, because a more

8

detailed explanation of metacognition will be explored in Chapter Two’s literature review.
Several other metacognitive strategies follow: “the metacognitive funnel” (Schoenbach,
Greenleaf, & Murphy, 2012, p. 25), talking to the text, think-a-loud, double-entry logs, and
LINK (list, inquire, notes, know). Finally, narrative inquiry describes how voices of the
participants within this study will weave together creating the energetic cord that demonstrates
the power of implementing metacognition into the classroom.
Metacognition
Metacognition is simply the awareness a person has of one's thinking (Chapter Two
provides a more in-depth definition). This can be extrapolated into metacognitive conversations:
it looks like students and teachers talking about their thinking while they read. The teacher does
not solely direct these metacognitive conversations, because these conversations are a reciprocal
event that is the result of a strong personal/emotional foundation within the classroom
environment. The teacher actively listens to the student's voice and then asks questions that will
direct the student into more inquiry.
Metacognitive Strategies
When the metacognitive practice is extended further to metacognitive strategies, one can
see students and teachers recording their thinking while they read, regardless of the subject area.
Metacognitive strategies include having purposeful conversations around reading strategies such
as previewing the text, setting a purpose for reading, connecting to prior knowledge, predicting
new learning, and developing new vocabulary. During a reading, strategies include monitoring
one’s comprehension, determining main ideas and details, making double-entry journals, and
visualizing. After-reading strategies include organizing information, classifying information
summarizing new learning, making and supporting inferences, and drawing and supporting

9

conclusions (Robb, Baumann, Fuhler, & Kindig, 2005). Schoenbach, Greenleaf, and Murphy
(2012) explored how this process of talking or recording about one’s thinking demystifies the
reading process (p. 22). This analogy tapped into personal observations when Schoenbach et al.
proclaimed, “Most of what happens with texts in classrooms gives students the mistaken
impression that reading comprehension happens by magic” (p. 22). Metacognitive conversations
and strategies help students see “what happens inside the mind of a more proficient reader,
someone who is willing to make the invisible visible by externalizing his or her mental activity”
(Schoenbach et al., pp. 22-23). Metacognitive strategies build comprehension because “the work
of comprehending is metacognitive; how readers make sense of text is as important as what
sense they make of it” (WestEd, 2011, p. 31). This display of comprehension is best explained
through the metaphor of the metacognitive funnel. Specific metacognitive strategies introduced
in this study to activate the metacognitive funnel were as follows: talking to the text, think-aloud, double-entry logs, and LINK (list, inquire, notes, know).
The metacognitive funnel. The metacognitive funnel is an excellent metaphor that helps
students and teachers “think about and talk about the ways readers' attention may shift as they
read any given text” (Schoenbach et al., 2012, p. 128). The funnel demonstrates the ways an
individuals' metacognitive awareness increases as they become more aware of their thinking
while they engage in reading. Schoenbach et al. (2012) used four distinct categories to delineate
the metacognitive depth: notice thinking, focus on reading, focus on solving reading problems,
and focus on disciplinary literacy practices (p. 128).
Noticing one's thinking starts with identifying the voice within and then determining the
subject of which the mind is indeed focused. From the teacher’s perspective, when working with
a class, this can be the starting point of conversations with the students. Noticing one's thinking

10

has an individual student naming a current awareness: “I am hungry.” “When does recess start?”
“I am thinking about the fight with my mom this morning!” Starting these conversations is a
large part of building trust. Allowing the students to voice their current frames of mind helps the
teacher to identify the possible probing questions that will direct the student to focus down
through the metacognitive funnel.
Directing the students to focus on reading starts with the teacher modelling various
strategies that help to focus the students' awareness. These strategies can be as simple as probing
questions or, as the RAF supports, these strategies become the reading routines within the
classroom. An example of a probing question could be “How might this map help me
understand the content of the paragraph next to it?” An example of a reading routine that helps to
focus the students' awareness is a double-entry reading log (which is defined later), which when
using the map example would have the student record specific attributes of the map in one
column and make connections in the second column. With the metacognitive funnel in mind, the
teacher intentionally plans to build the repertoire of reading strategies throughout the school
year, with the hope that the students will activate their thinking awareness more independently as
the year progresses.
The teacher begins this process of gradual release by teaching students strategies that help
to focus on identifying and solving reading problems, as well as building strategies that support
focus on disciplinary literacy practices. An example of a probing activation phrase could be
“This is new information, how can you put it into your own words? Which tracking devices
could be used to track your thinking?” or "Who wrote this article? Is it from a reliable source?”
Probing and building metacognitive strategies, and building the awareness of metacognition,

11

within students is not an easy task. It involves care and attention from the teachers. These last
two sections of the metacognitive funnel were at the centre of the current research.
Talking to the text. Talking to the text is a routine that makes time for the students to
read and record their thinking individually before sharing with a small group. The teacher first
must model talking to the text by speaking his/her thinking while recording on the text page and
using a document reader so that the learners can watch the process of recording thoughts. The
students then record their thinking by writing in the margins, circling important words or words
that confuse, asking questions, or making predictions. Readers can make text-to-text
connections; they can make clarifications; they can make markings that point out confusion so
that they can ask questions to a group about the reading. These annotations can help to guide
their metacognitive conversation that will lead to a deeper comprehension of the text.
Think-a-loud. Think-a-loud inquiry is a routine that requires a pair of learners to engage
in reading together. While one person reads and talks about the reading and his/her thinking, the
partner records what is said on a copy of the text. The pair then join with another pair, and
together the four learners discuss the reading by having the recorder share what the individual
readers thought while they were reading. Then the readers clarify or add more insight.
Double-entry logs. Double-entry logs are writing routines that have learners record their
thinking while they read, on a separate paper that has two columns: the left column is for
recording the evidence, (what they saw, heard, or read – such as a quotation) and the right
column is for recording their thinking, reasoning, or question. The double-entry logs promote
critical thinking by tracking the learners’ thinking as they read. The repeated use of double-entry
logs promotes awareness of the learners’ thinking processes, and the logs also support the
teacher’s ability to track the progress of the learners' reading strategies.

12

LINK. LINK is an acronym for List, Inquire, Notes, Know, which is a group discussion
pre-reading and during-reading strategy that has the learners chunk their thinking and record it
based on group and individual work. The first step is to divide the class into groups of about
four students and, just as the acronym says, have them List what they already know about the
given topic. After this discussion around the list, the teacher then gives the students time to write
down what they know. This solitary writing time is essential for making connections to the
students’ schema. Next, the group members ask each other questions about what was listed
(Inquire). Then the learners record all the questions. Next, the students silently read the selected
text and annotate while they read. After reading, the group comes together again, and using the
inquiry questions looks for the answers within the reading to discuss the connections made. For
example, teachers may prompt the students by saying, “Look for answers to our inquiry
questions, or connections to what you already know or heard about in our discussion and record
new questions that arose as you read.” This discussion is then followed by the individual
students making Notes.
Finally, the teacher prompts the learners to think and record what they now Know about
the topic. The teacher encourages the learners to compare their developing understanding now,
after the discussion and reading, to what they knew before the discussion and reading. The
learners then write a short explanation describing how their understanding has changed as a
result of the discussion and readings.
Summary of the Strategies
These strategies create metacognitive conversations and therefore become agents that
disrupt student and teacher cognition, making them more aware of their thinking while they read.
This disruption creates an element of chaos in the examination of literacy improvement; it is a

13

disruption that promotes growth when we can create stability around the chaos by using an agile
mindset (Breakspear, 2016).
Chapter Summary
Chapter One explored the importance of teacher metacognition, explained the RAF for
the research, outlined the purpose and the question for this study, stated the significance to the
field, defined the researcher’s stance of narrative inquiry, explained the theoretical-conceptual
framework, and defined relevant terms.
Thesis Overview
This study captured the teacher participant’s reflections and stories. Chapter One
outlined the critical elements needed for a deeper understanding of metacognition and the
impacts it can have on learning. Chapter Two is a literary review of metacognition, outlining the
need for more research on teacher metacognition. Chapter Three outlines the methodology of
the narrative inquiry and why this stance is powerful when exploring teacher metacognition.
Chapter Four outlines the findings collected through the interview process; it captures the
memories and reflections around metacognitive conversations and strategies within each
participant’s classroom. Chapter Five uses narrative inquiry to pull out six threads common to
the literature and the research findings, creating a tapestry of the teachers’ metacognitive
process, revealing that their awareness of metacognition is impacting their practice and their
perception of student achievement. Chapter Six supports the findings, weaving connections
between teachers’ awareness around metacognition and the common threads found in each
narrative, which builds the conclusions and recommendations for practice and further research.

14

Chapter Two:
Analysis of the Literature
Chapter Two is an analysis of teacher metacognition in the literature, which is the raison
d’être of the current study. The review defines the following terms: cognition, metacognition
and personal practical knowledge. The Reading Apprentice Framework (RAF) outlines the four
dimensions that support making thinking visible to students. The criteria for quality experiences
of metacognition explain how the four-dimensional framework supports metacognition within
any subject area classroom. Three teacher practices influence student metacognition as
discovered within the literature: Teachers’ modelling their thinking supports students’
understanding; Teacher awareness of reading strategies broaden the reading experience for
students; Teacher understanding of self-regulated learning shapes a metacognitive space for
students. There are gaps in the literature on teacher metacognition, engendering possibilities for
the current research.
Defining Terms:
Cognition, Metacognition, and Personal Practical Knowledge
As educators progress in their understanding of how humans learn and build knowledge,
understanding of cognition and metacognition has evolved. Schraw (1998) distinguished
cognition and metacognition by citing Garner: “that cognitive skills are necessary to perform a
task, while metacognition is necessary to understand how the task was performed” (p. 113).
Cognition
Garner’s explanation of how cognition and metacognition differ is extensively examined
in Schraw & Moshman (1995), and Garner is also cited by Akman & Alagöz (2018), “while
cognitive information is relevant for how one person knows and understands learning paths and

15

memory, cognitive adjustments skills are related to how a person organizes and adjusts his/her
learning and memory” (p. 16). Akman and Alagöz also expanded on Garner and explained that
developing cognitive regulation skills and cognitive knowledge means one is using one’s own
metacognition, and their research supports that “it is very important to investigate the correlation
between the academic achievement of students and their metacognitive knowledge and skills” (p.
16). Content and curriculum in school have generally had cognition at the centre of teacher
knowledge as promoted by the western curriculum (Mitchell, 2005). Metacognition and
metacognitive strategies can be the catalysts of the curriculum as “something experienced in
situations” (Connelly, & Clandinin, 1988, p. 6), but first teacher metacognitive awareness must
be addressed.
The Language of Metacognition and Personal Practical Knowledge
Metacognition and personal practical knowledge come from different research traditions.
However, both terms help us to understand how teachers make space for students to have
experiences of understanding (or misunderstanding) and thinking about what they are thinking
while reading and learning. An understanding of metacognition and personal practical
knowledge helps the teacher to better define and employ the processes involved in building on
existing schemas while reading and learning.
Metacognition
Metacognition can be understood as a person thinking about thinking (Akman & Alagöz,
2018; Aktag et al., 2017; Hughes, 2017; Ozturk, 2017a, 2017b; Rapchak, 2018; Saenz, Geraci,
Miller & Tirso, 2017; Schoenbach et al., 2012; Schraw, 1998; Sullivan, 2009). As educators
progress in their understanding of how humans learn, they are building knowledge,
understanding the processes of cognition and metacognition.

16

Saenz et al. (2017) defined metacognition using Dumlosky, Serra, and Baker’s assertion
that “metacognition is defined as knowledge and awareness of one’s own cognitive processes,
and the assessment of these cognitive processes is called metacognitive monitoring” (p. 125).
Aktag, Semsek, and Tuzcuoglu (2017) did not make the distinction of monitoring; instead, they
included monitoring within their definition of metacognition (p. 63).
John Flavell’s work is cited as the first to use metacognition in the education field
(Akman & Alagöz, 2018; Meijer et al., 2006; Moshman, 2018; Prins, Veenman, & Elshout,
2006; Schellings et al., Schraw & Moshman, 1995; Van der Stel & Veenman, 2014), because he
was the first to “distinguish between knowledge about the contents of memory versus processes
used to regulate and monitor memory and cognition” (Schraw, 2009, p. 33; Schraw & Dennison,
1994a). Van der Stel and Veenman (2014) cited multiple researchers (Alexander et al., 1995,
Winne 1996, Barnett 2000, Pressley et al., 1997), who agreed that “having metacognitive
knowledge at one’s disposal, however, appears to be no guarantee for using this knowledge
whenever it is needed (p. 118). Akman and Alagöz (2018) ascertained that metacognition has
been popular in the field of cognitive psychology and education since the 1970s and that
metacognitive awareness “involves recognition of what the individual does or does not know,
controlling his or her mental processes, taking the learning responsibility, being aware of his/her
own learning strategies, evaluating his own learning, planning, monitoring and managing his
knowledge” (p. 16), all essential aspects of one’s learning.
Van der Stel and Veenman, (2010, 2014) help us to understand how metacognition
develops within a person, and although this goes beyond the scope of this current study, it is
helpful in understanding how experts like teachers might influence metacognitive growth when it
becomes a part of a teacher’s personal practical knowledge.

17

Some evidence has been found that “theory of mind” (ToM) can be considered as a
precursor of metacognitive knowledge (Lockl and Schneider 2006), while metacognitive
knowledge can be considered as a necessary precursor of one’s metacognitive skills
(Annevirta and Vauras 2006). Alongside with the ToM, that is, the understanding of
one’s own and other people’s state of mind (Wellman 1990), young preschoolers already
start to develop some metacognitive awareness (Blöte et al. 2004; Demetriou and
Efklides 1990; Kuhn 1999). Larkin (2006) found a relation between ToM, metacognitive
knowledge, and strategy use in two 5- to 6- year olds. (Van der Stelp & Veenman, 2014,
pp. 119-120)
Van der Stel and Veenman’s study (2014) further determined that growth in the use of
metacognitive skills of participants’ ages 13-15 became stagnant after the second year within the
study (p. 130). However,
it is presumed that growth is only temporarily arrested. According to the dynamic
systems theory (Siegler et al. 2010), a theory that focuses on how change occurs over
time in complex systems, individual children acquire skills at different ages and at a
different pace. Individual development entails regressions as well as progress.
Development of metacognitive skills seems to be in line with the dynamic systems
theory: During development, both progress and regression occur, and not all components
of metacognitive skills develop at the same pace. Vukman and Licardo (2010) also found
a decrease in all fields of self-regulation from age 14 to 18 years, followed by an increase
to the age of 22 years. (Van der Stel & Veenman, p. 131)
We can now anticipate that the need for modelling from the expert would enhance and support
the awareness of individuals as they continue schooling, explicitly participating in the practice of

18

metacognition, as opposed to letting regulation of metacognition develop without intervention
from expert teachers. Van der Stel and Veenman’s (2010) study shows that “metacognitive
skills cannot be ignored as an important predictor of learning performance. These skills develop
during an important phase in education (p. 224).
Making metacognition a part of everyday routines was emphasized when Hughes (2017)
highlights metacognition as the ability to “recognize and regulate one's own thinking in real
time” (p. 25), and Bing-You et al. (2017) coined the time reference as “thinking-in action” (p.
410). Including “in real time” connects with the most significant aspect of Akman and Alagöz's
(2018) research, when they acknowledged that “while many students use metacognitive
strategies while reading books, it cannot be argued that all students know how and why to use
them” (p. 16). Therefore, the current research sought to find a connection between the awareness
of teachers’ metacognition and their ability to model their metacognition “in real time” (Hughes,
p.25), so that metacognition becomes a part of the daily classroom practice because it is a part of
the teachers’ personal practical knowledge.
Personal Practical Knowledge
Personal Practical Knowledge is a holistic approach to thinking about all the tools,
presences of mind, and connections that teachers bring, as they become curriculum makers.
Connelly and Clandinin (1988) descrubed “personal practical knowledge” as
a term designed to capture the idea of experience in a way that allows us to talk about
teachers as knowledgeable and knowing persons. . . . [Personal practical knowledge] is in
the person's past experiences, in the person's present mind and body, and in the person’s
future plans and actions. . . . [Personal practical knowledge is found in the teacher’s

19

practice. It is, for any teacher,] a particular way of reconstructing the past and the
intention for the future to deal with the exigencies of a present situation. (p. 25)
Personal practical knowledge is a teacher thinking about what he or she knows in relation to how
he or she will create experiences for the children in classrooms. A thought influencing the
current research is that perhaps teachers’ use of their personal practical knowledge is more based
on successes with their past experiences, “curriculum-as-plan” (Aoki, 1993, p. 257), and that
their understanding of what made that successful might need a shift or change in the next
moments of “curriculum-as-lived” (Aoki, 1993, p. 258). Therefore, the learning and increased
practice of metacognition are needed in order to expand on teachers' personal practical
knowledge while teaching the students to read challenging texts in their classrooms. The
question is when teachers are asking students to read and then demonstrate understanding from
their readings, do they have enough personal practical knowledge around demonstrating their
expert reading strategies? As Charles McMurry indicated in 1914, “The teacher is working at
the very smelting process, the point of difficulty where new, uncomprehending knowledge meets
this tumult of the child’s mind” (Clandinin, & Connelly, 1992, p. 378). The RAF supports
teachers with this “smelting process,” providing detailed structures and strategies that help build
teachers’ awareness of metacognition.
Reading Apprenticeship Framework:
Teachers’ Thinking About Making Thinking Visible
The RAF is rooted in psychologist L.S. Vygotsky’s work that holds that cognitive
development needs healthy social support systems (Schoenbach et al., 2012, p. 21). Within the
RAF, the idea of learning to read is considered a complex task, and it requires supports through
multiple levels of one’s learning and cognitive development (p. 17). The RAF calls for a gradual

20

release of responsibility as teachers model their thinking around their own reading strategies “for
students encountering challenging academic materials and tasks, being shown what goes on
behind the curtain of expert reading is especially powerful” (p. 22). The RAF speaks of
“demystifying” the reading processes (p. 22) through “text-based discussions” (p. 23) with
experts and peers “developing engaged, strategic and independent readers” (p. 23).
Criteria for Quality Experiences of Metacognition in Reading
The four-dimensional framework of the Reading Apprenticeship (RA) makes space for
metacognitive student conversation (internal and external) as articulated by Schoenbach et al.
(2012):
Social Dimension: Community building in the classroom, including recognizing their
resources brought by each member and developing a safe environment for students to be
open about their reading difficulties.
Personal Dimension: Developing students’ identities and self-awareness as readers, as
well as their purposes for reading and goals for reading improvement.
Cognitive Dimension: Developing readers’ mental processes, including their problemsolving strategies.
Knowledge-Building Dimension: identifying and expanding the kinds of knowledge
readers bring to a text and further develop through interactions with that text. (p. 24)
Surrounding these four dimensions of the RAF classroom is “reading and collaborative work
with texts” (p. 24). Students, along with teachers and peers, engage in texts: talking about the
text and annotating around the text. There is “a focus on reading and talk about reading during
classroom lessons (which) gives teachers the opportunity to mentor students in the reasoning and
problem-solving skills they need to master” (p. 24). This talking of, about, and to the text is

21

referred to as the metacognitive conversation, and the metacognitive conversation is central to
the RAF (p. 25). Researchers O’Malley and Chamot highlighted the importance of
metacognition by discovering “a correlation between learners’ success and the use of
metacognitive strategies” (Forbes & Fisher, 2018, p. 174). This correlation must be extrapolated
now to teachers. It is within the metacognitive strategies and metacognitive conversations that
the teachers’ personal practical knowledge can make for powerful learning moments.
Social Dimension
The social dimension within the RAF pertains to the awareness around the building of the
social learning community by “the teacher as curriculum maker” (Clandinin & Connell, 1992).
The social dimension entails teachers creating safe places for learners to share their idea
production, “integrating the relationship between literacy and power” and developing voice
around a text (Schoenbach et al., 2012, p. 25). The social dimension involves teachers’
awareness around building the learning experience. Borko et al. (2000) cited Prawt & Floden
and Resnick’s findings that “social constructivists accept the premise that knowledge is a social
product; knowledge creation is a shared experience” (p. 269). Richmond et al. (2017) found that
“when students received active learning instruction, they had significantly better academic
performance versus students who were taught using direct instruction on both immediate and
delayed assessments (p. 299). Reference to the social dimension is seen in Borko et al.’s (2000)
research, because they found that the teachers they were following “talked about ‘giving up
control’ to students as they organized the learning environments in their classrooms to enable
students to take a more active role in their own learning” (p. 296). These ideas of experiential
learning can be accentuated by the inclusion of metacognitive strategies and metacognitive
conversations.

22

Rapchak’s (2018) research hinted at the importance of social interaction because
“instructors may need to include assignments or synchronous discussion sessions for
collaborative groups that encourage brainstorming” (p. 385), very similar to the process
encouraged by RAF. Moshman (2018) described “the role of peer interaction as a ‘process of
social construction that differs in part from both cultural transmission and individual
construction’” (p. 601). Jones (2007) asserted that “making our implicit thoughts explicit
through talk is a powerful learning tool for both adults and children” (p. 569). All of these
researchers encouraged discussion, highlighting the importance of both sharing and listening,
and this notion is at the centre of RAF upholding metacognitive conversations in the classroom.
Central to the metacognitive conversation is the ability to listen. Chou’s (2017) research
reveals that although listening is a significant part of learning, “it has received less research
attention than the other three language skills” (p. 51). Chou’s also examined the influence of
task-based lesson planning, as an alternative to lecture-based planning (p. 54), indicating that
task-based lesson has more impact on learner’s metacognitive awareness (p. 54). “The life
quality of human beings will be increased with thought sharing and discussion and this increase
is achieved by means of an adequate development of mental faculties such as critical and
creative thinking, raising metacognitive awareness and problem solving” (Akman & Alagöz,
2018, p. 11). Ensuring that metacognitive strategies and metacognitive conversation are
regularly occurring in the classroom means that teachers need to build a safe space in which
students can actively share their voice and listen to others. Aktag et al.’s (2017) research speaks
to the preparation needed to highlight the social dimension during teacher training, in that “it is
necessary for teachers to prepare surroundings to improve metacognitive skills during their
undergraduate education as well as with the support of in-service trainings” (p. 68). This

23

research speaks to the need for building personal practical knowledge of teachers, including
metacognition in teacher preparation, acknowledging the importance of the social dimension.
Personal Dimension
The personal dimension within the RAF has at its core the idea of developing the
individual student identity around reading and learning. Central to this student development is
the use of metacognitive strategies and metacognitive conversations. Yildiz and Akdag (2017)
referenced Vygotsky’s work, identifying the expression of the “inner voice” of student’s
processes as crucial to their learning process (p. 31). Researchers agree that supporting
metacognition in the classroom needs to take into account the personal aspects of the individual.
Larson (2009) acknowledged “that (current) educational discourse and practice fails to give any
consideration to the inner life of human formation” (p. 317). Larson directly identified the lack
of attention currently given to the personal dimension of students:
The inner life of the student is of vital existential significance, but part of an excluded or
ignored “null curriculum.” Educational theory and practice largely fails to consider that
which is decisive in the making of who we actually are: “The narrative that runs in your
mind throughout your day (e.g., your worries, hopes, dreams, thoughts of your socialimage, body-image), your emotional life, and your bodily sensations are all subject matter
that forms an inner curriculum.” (p. 316)
Larson’s research supports the need for teachers to recognize the personal dimension of the
students because it directly affects their abilities to learn.
Building the personal dimension within students is not considered an easy task.
Abromitis (1994) refered to the development of fluency and stamina as reflected in the personal
dimension: “A metacognitive analysis of the task puts the reader in control of the situation; it

24

encourages flexible and adaptive thinking, and if necessary, modification of the reading process
to fit the known purpose for reading” (p. 5). She described the importance of reader identity as
students developing “a basic understanding of their own characteristics as learner. . . This
[personal] knowledge is usually late-developing, and significant differences are seen between
beginning and mature readers, and good and poor readers at all stages” (p. 6). Schraw’s (1998)
literacy review indicated, “Monitoring ability develops slowly and is quite poor in children and
even adults” (p. 115). Forbes and Fisher’s (2018) study upheld the importance of building the
personal dimension despite the rigor needed because
Metacognitive learning strategies can have a positive impact on [the student’s]
confidence and proficiency levels . . . [S]trategy use also must be recognized as a
complex phenomenon which needs to consider students’ individual personality and
learning styles and the particular task or skill at hand (p. 184).
Attention to the personal dimension is also seen in Ozturk’s (2017a) research, in which he
affirmed that “in order for readers to plan, monitor, regulate and evaluate cognitive strategies and
reading process and performance, metacognitive strategies are indispensable” (pp. 247-248).
All of these researchers pointed to the need for teachers to build their personal practical
knowledge around how metacognitive awareness can benefit their growth as well as their
students’ growth. Schraw (1998) also noted studies that “suggest that monitoring ability
improves with training and practice” (p. 115). This research indicated that students need to
distinguish between cognition and metacognition to become better self-regulating individuals
and that teachers need to model this visibly. “High quality instruction enables students of all
ages to construct domain-specific and domain-general strategies, metacognitive knowledge about
themselves and their cognitive skills, and how to better regulate their cognition” (Schraw, 1998,

25

p. 123). Developing these personal aspects of how students read and think needs to be modelled
by teachers; thus, teacher metacognitive awareness is necessary to support the personal
dimension of each classroom.
Cognitive Dimension
Metacognition has two significant components: knowledge about cognition and
regulation of cognition (Schraw & Moshman, 1995). Schraw (1994a) referenced the research
done by Brown, Flavell, and Jacobs and Paris, which was initiated over three decades ago.
Schraw further broke down both components as follows: knowledge of cognition into three subprocesses: declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge and conditional knowledge; and
regulation of cognition into five sub processes: planning, information management strategies,
comprehension monitoring, debugging strategies, and evaluation (p. 460; extensive review in
Schraw & Moshman, 1995). Researchers in the 21st-century still use these sub-processes of both
knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition as bases for their research (Akman &
Alagoz, 2018; Bing-You et al., 2017; Chou, 2017; Hughes, 2017, Kallio et al., 2017, Kallio et.
al., 2018; Ozturk, 2017a, 2017b). Abromitis (1994) cited Otto’s research, acknowledging that
“for successful readers, metacognitive development seems to parallel their cognitive
development in reading, where poor readers' metacognitive development falls behind their
cognitive development” (p. 8). Could the same parallel be found when measuring teacher
awareness of metacognition to their practice of metacognition in the classroom? Schraw and
Graham’s (1997) research also supports this gap, affirming that “metacognitive knowledge is not
necessarily stable or conscious” and that “even adults experience difficulty providing explicit
descriptions of their own expert cognition” (p. 4). Prins et al. (2006) applied Elshout’s 1987’s
threshold of problematicity theory, predicting that for a novice learner “when tasks are very

26

complex, the quality of metacognitive skills rather than intellectual ability is the main
determinant of learning outcomes, because learners have to improvise and use heuristics rather
than call upon knowledge and skill components that are associated with intellectual ability” (p.
377). Prins et al.’s findings supported that metacognitive strategies are the “main determinant”
in overcoming complex problems (p. 384). Therefore, this supports the need for teachers to
model an expert’s navigation of complex thinking around reading, making visible metacognition
strategies to support student metacognition. Perhaps this is another reason for more research
regarding teachers’ metacognitive awareness and their ability to model metacognition in
classrooms.
Schraw’s (1994a) literature review focused on student metacognition, citing several
findings from the early 1990s that “metacognitive knowledge plays a compensatory role in
cognitive performance by improving strategy use” (p. 461). The purpose of Schraw’s research
was “to generate and test an easily administered metacognitive inventory suitable for adolescents
and adults (p. 461). The results of Schraw’s research using the Metacognitive Awareness
Inventory (MAI, Appendix A) validated “that the test provided reliable initial test of
metacognitive awareness among older students” (p. 472). This test, with a slight variation of the
subprocesses, is still used in 21st century research, helping to build research and awareness
around metacognition.
The implication of metacognition, on the “teacher as curriculum makers” (Clandinin &
Connell, 1992) as pertaining to the cognitive dimension, is reflected in research.
For efficient reading, individuals had better use cognitive and metacognitive strategies
simultaneously. As for meaning-making and gaining information out of context, readers
employ cognitive strategies. In order for readers to plan, monitor, regulate, and evaluate

27

cognitive strategies and reading process and performance, metacognitive strategies are
indispensable. When any of these competencies are inadequate, comprehension can be
impeded. (Ozturk, 2017a, pp. 247-248)
Therefore, metacognition and the tracking of metacognition are “key to learning and [are]
indispensable in a classroom setting because [they] allow students to assess the impact on their
study habits and guide future academic behaviors” (Saenz et al., 2017, p. 125). Bing-You et al.
(2017) related this key to learning, as similar to a clinical teacher saying that the “cognitive
function involves planning the use of effective strategies for teaching and learning, monitoring
one’s performance and the situation, and evaluating the accomplishment of tasks” (p. 410). They
acknowledged the importance of monitoring these cognitive functions in real-time. Jones (2007)
asserted this idea of in real-time, asking for “the teacher [to] model the metacognitive process [as
it] is central in asking questions that encourage children to consider how, for example, they solve
problems; why they accept or reject particular ideas; or why, perhaps, they would undertake the
process differently another time” (p. 572).
Akman and Alagöz (2018) explained:
Cognitive information is relevant for how one person knows and understands learning
paths and memory, [and] cognitive adjustment skills are related to how a person
organizes and adjusts his/her learning and memory. . . . If students have developed their
cognitive regulation skills and their cognitive knowledge, that means they are using their
metacognition and they are academically superior. (p. 16)
Therefore, in order to build classrooms that support the cognitive dimension, teachers need to
access their metacognition and model this to students. Saenz et al. (2017) and Ozturk (2017a,

28

2017b) firmly linked the need for increased metacognitive awareness in a teacher’s personal
practical knowledge.
Knowledge-Building Dimension
Understanding the importance and compelling nature of teacher metacognition as it
pertains to building knowledge or refining individual schema is supported by Kallio et al.’s
(2017) finding that “to achieve good learning outcomes, students should be able to regulate their
learning within different subject areas. This kind of setting requires a revision of the teachers’
role” (p. 78). Another recent study by Fletcher (2018) had teachers use “help seeking” as a
strategy in their classroom. This term is related to one’s metacognitive knowledge, such that
teachers teach “help seeking [so that it] is framed by a learner’s awareness about the context in
respect to persons, strategies, goals and tasks that may be of help” (p. 391). Fletcher’s (2018)
“findings suggest that this approach [of help seeking] aided students’ engagement in
metacognitive processes such as monitoring understanding, organizing ideas and checking for
consistency” (p. 400). The regulation of student metacognition is necessary while building
knowledge of disciplinary discourse and practices (Schoenbach et al., 2012, p. 25).
The regulation of students’ schema as they learn is highlighted in the RAF (Schoenbach
et al., 2012) within the metacognitive conversations that make visible the strategies that teachers
and peers use to refine their existing schema (p. 37). RAF upholds that when teachers and peers
model strategies such as think-aloud, talking to the text, and double-entry journals (p. 101), they
are demonstrating the regulation of their thinking. Other strategies that are similar to double
entry journals are See-Think-Wonder, Colour, Symbol, Image (CSI), and Sentence-Phrase-Word
(Ritchhart et al., 2011, pp. 51-52). All of these strategies help students to become expert at
regulating their own thinking when modelled by teachers and peers, thus increasing the students’

29

knowledge building. Karpicke and Grimaldi’s (2013) research highlights the significance that
retrieval-practice has on building knowledge, and yet students do not actively use retrievalpractice strategies (p. 411). Missing from Karpicke and Grimaldi’s study is a correlation to
teacher use of these retrieval-practice strategies.
The teacher modelling of metacognition becomes instruction that activates and develops
students’ metacognition. For both student and teacher, “metacognitive awareness is required in
knowledge-intensive work and lifelong learning” (Kallio et al., 2018, p. 102). Teacher
modelling pertains to “implementing metacognition as an integral part of . . . lessons, and . . .
making students aware of their cognitive activities and the utility of those activities” as cited in
Ozturk (2017a, p. 249). Therefore, “knowledge of teachers' awareness of metacognition is
required to support students' self-regulation” (Kallio et al., 2017, p. 79). This research presents a
need for the awareness of metacognition within the teachers to increase, thus supporting
knowledge-building by modelling these self-regulation skills to their students. Engaging the
teachers in metacognitive awareness supports them to have more success during metacognitive
conversations.
Three Teacher Practices That Influence Student Metacognition
There is widespread agreement among educational researchers that the way teachers
think about thinking affects the experiences students have during learning. In preparation for
this literature review, it became quickly apparent that student thinking has been more thoroughly
researched and that there is a lack of research regarding teacher metacognition and awareness
while teaching. However, three teacher practices that influence student metacognition emerged
when using the four-dimensions of the RAF. These practices comprised the following threads
found within the literature review: Teachers’ modelling their thinking supports students’

30

understanding; Teacher awareness of reading strategies broaden the reading experience for
students; Teacher understanding of self-regulated learning shapes a metacognitive space for
students.
Teachers’ Modelling Their Thinking Supports Students’ Understanding.
The four dimensions in RAF create the foundation that supports making metacognition
visible. The personal dimension and the social dimension work together, enabling direct
instruction of strategies alongside flexible modelling by the teacher and practice with peers
(Abromitis, 1994). Modelling metacognition, making thinking visible, delineates “when, how
and where each strategy is used” (Ozturk, 2017a, p. 249) and helps to solidify the strategy’s
impact on the reading and learning process for the student (Ozturk, 2017b). Schoenbach et al.
(2012) expressed how this all starts with the teachers’ modelling their metacognition to
demystify the thinking process for students.
Teacher Awareness of Reading Strategies Broaden the Reading Experience for Students.
Forbes and Fisher (2018) claimed that understanding strategies has more impact when the
student knows best when to use that strategy, such that “for teachers it highlights a range of
strategies which can be introduced to students to improve both their confidence and proficiency
levels (p. 184). They made “a correlation between learners’ success and the use of
metacognitive strategies” (p. 174). The RAF supports teacher awareness with multiple reading
strategies, because the reading and learning experiences of students need the four dimensions
(personal, social, cognitive, and knowledge-building) in place to ensure that learners take control
of their learning.

31

Teacher Understanding of Self-Regulated Learning Shapes a Metacognitive Space for
Students.
Rapchak’s research speaks to the social interaction that is needed to make space for
metacognitive strategies and conversations. This connects with the social dimension of RAF in
shaping the classroom space and readying students for classroom activities that spiral them down
the metacognitive funnel. The literature speaks to the gradual release of students, which has
more impact when the students’ self-regulation is supported by social interactions that share
metacognition and knowledge building processes that effectively engage existing schema (Aktag
et al., 2017; Bing-You et al., 2017). Young and Fry (2008) confirmed that a teacher can use
metacognitive awareness to “tailor instructional intervention related to metacognitive knowledge
and regulation to meet the needs of individual students” (p. 9). The literature around
metacognition supports the need for more research around teacher metacognition so as to inform
teachers’ personal practical knowledge around supporting students to “make informed choices
about self-regulated behaviors” (Shraw & Moshman, 1995, p. 361)
Gaps in the Literature on Teacher Metacognition
The literature indicates that there is a gap between teacher awareness of metacognition
and teacher practices using metacognition. Metacognition “has become increasingly important
in the realms of teacher professional development, with the understanding that if teachers are
able to teach students to be metacognitive or to think metacognitively, then teachers must think
metacognitively themselves, as well as be aware of when metacognition is taking place (Prytula,
2012, p. 112). Putnam and Borko (2000) wrote of the need for the building of teacher personal
practical knowledge when they said “less attention has been paid to teachers----either to their
roles in creating learning experiences consistent with the reform agenda or to how they

32

themselves learn new ways of teaching” (p. 4). Ozturk (2017b) confirmed, “There is a gap
between metacognition research and practices” (p. 3). Therefore, the teachers’ personal practical
knowledge regarding metacognition is limited, and this directly affects student learning. “The
degree to which students are capable of metacognition and the degree to which teachers teach
metacognition in the mainstream and research classrooms are not similar to each other” (pp. 3-4).
Ozturk (2017b) reports that “limited research examining teachers' pedagogies of metacognition
reported that teachers’ instruction lacks pedagogies of metacognition so as to teach students
metacognition” (p. 4). The lack of pedagogical tools is also in Ozturk (2017a): “It is unfortunate
that research findings do not translate into effective classroom metacognition instruction
automatically and/or easily” (p. 248). Prytula (2012) also found that “teachers must understand
metacognition themselves and how they use it throughout their professional work. In practice,
however, a gap exists in discovering and understanding the metacognitive thought processes of
teachers as they engage in professional dialogues and professional development (p. 113). Again,
this stresses the need for increased awareness of metacognition to heighten teachers’ personal
practical knowledge.
Ozturk (2017a) claimed that lack of teachers’ personal practical knowledge around
metacognition is affecting the students’ abilities to “execute metacognitive control” (p. 248).
“Although both teacher competencies and metacognition are known to play a vital role in
learning, surprisingly little is known about teacher knowledge of metacognition” (Larson, 2009,
p. 184). Mitchell (2005) is accurate in stating that “in an increasingly multicultural world, all
people and their knowledge ways occupy an equal place within the sacred circle of life” (p. 42).
The goal of continued research regarding metacognition is to understand and perhaps make an
awareness that will lessen the theory-to-practice transfer problem (Craig, 2012) within the

33

teaching community, promoting the need and practice of metacognition as a fundamental
component of teacher personal practical knowledge.
Abromitis’s (1994) discussion sets out direct teacher actions that could influence the
teacher’s use of metacognition within the classroom; however, Abromitis mostly examined
student metacognition and not teacher metacognition. Moreover, Craig (1995) ascertained that
metacognition is yet to be considered standard content for teacher personal practical knowledge
(p. 152). More research is needed to build evidence that teacher awareness of metacognition is a
prerequisite for improving student metacognition. Ozturk (2017a) concluded, “It is important
both to investigate teachers’ understanding, knowledge and competencies with metacognition
instruction and also help empower them as metacognitive models” (pp. 248-249). Doing so will
build teachers’ personal practical knowledge. Building personal practical knowledge using
metacognitive strategies and metacognitive conversation is needed because “teachers’
metacognitive declarative knowledge about thinking skills was not satisfactory to be able to
teach students the same skills” (Ozturk, 2017b, p. 6). The literature reinforces the need for
further research regarding teachers’ awareness of metacognition and their ability to use
metacognitive strategies in their practice.
Possibilities for This Current Research
This literature review has highlighted the importance of quality assessment tools when
researching a person’s metacognitive awareness (Schraw & Dennison, 1994a, p. 461). The
current research used the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (Schraw & Dennison, 1994c) as a
tool to activate metacognitive thinking in each participant, thus priming the participant
reflections.

34

Further metacognitive research should consider that “metacognitive skill and
metacognitive activity are not the same – at least they are operationalized differently. In the first
place, metacognitive activity and cognitive activity are very hard to distinguish” (Meijer et al.,
2012, p. 620). Metacognition can be tricky to observe and time-consuming to track and record
accurately. Therefore, current research regarding metacognition should take into consideration
the following thoughts as recorded by Meijer et al. (2012):
Veenman (1993) claims that the most important distinction is that between metacognitive
knowledge and metacognitive skill. Meijer et al. (2003) introduced the distinction
between metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive regulation and metacognitive
responsiveness. Efklides (2006) introduced the concept of metacognitive experience, and
Schraw and Dennison (1994) used metacognitive awareness. Apart from resolving the
manifold operationalization of the construct “metacognition”, it appears that further
consensus concerning the theoretical status of the construct and its subdivisions is badly
needed. (p. 621)
The current research’s focus on teacher awareness opens a new avenue in the literature, which
has so far been restricted to students’ metacognition as it relates to their academic performance.
Making the teachers’ metacognition visible reveals the relationship between modelling
metacognition and increasing teachers’ perceptions of student achievement. “An interesting
finding in one of the Veenman et al. studies was that the strength of the relationship between
intelligence and metacognition appeared to be dependent on the level of expertise” (Meijer et al.,
2012, p. 602). Once again, the literature review speaks to the need for the current research
regarding teachers as experts in implementing metacognitive strategies and metacognitive
conversations within their personal practical knowledge.

35

We have also learned from Ozturk (2017b) that “Teaching and Learning constitute two
sides of a coin. Neither can be studied independent of the other because teaching and learning
inform each other. However, metacognition research has to sacrifice one to understand the target
phenomenon better” (p. 5). It is for this reason that this current research concentrated on the
teachers’ metacognition without the voice of the students. I am aware that this created a bias in
this research, because working only from the teachers’ perspective is incomplete when
understanding the metacognitive process within the classroom. Metacognitive strategies and
metacognitive conversations within the RAF classroom are composed of the students’ voices at
the centre. However, as noted in the literature, there is a need to understand the teachers’
awareness of metacognition and build their personal practical knowledge.
This research was also informed by McLeod’s (2015) work on reflection. McLeod’s
research paid attention to research done in 2008 by Moon, who wrote that “one person cannot
make another person reflect; they can only facilitate or foster a critically reflective approach
through appropriate conditions” (p. 256). Because the current research hoped to gain insight
regarding teachers’ awareness of metacognition through analysis of their reflections, there was a
possibility that teachers’ personal practical knowledge would be enriched through these selfreflections. Thus, creating appropriate conditions for each participant held great weight in
preparation for this study. This current research sought to build on Putnam and Borko’s (2000)
notion that teachers’ learning experiences are “too removed from the day-to-day work of
teaching” (p. 6). Establishing this research around the RAF, with choice and time in
consideration, it was hoped that participants would feel confident in their day-to-day conditions
and that the teachers’ personal practical knowledge around metacognition would flow easily into
their reflections.

36

Schellings et al. (2013) described a gap in students’ understanding of their own
metacognitive awareness, which may be extrapolated into the current research of teachers’
metacognitive awareness. Because metacognition is complex, understanding “what”
assessments to use for “what” metacognitive exercises is not yet conclusive. The complexity
arises in the understanding of conscious metacognitive work, and the unconscious metacognitive
work that is happening within participants/learners. Comparing the research of Pressley and
Afflerbach with the work of Schraw and Moshman and conducting an analysis, Schellings et al.
noted that the complexity of metacognition makes it hard to determine what aspects of cognition
are affected by certain metacognitive strategies (p. 965).
Schellings et al. (2013) gave substantial grounds for caution while in the preparation
states of future research. Their work suggests that coding systems used to assess such
metacognitive exercises as a think-aloud strategy may be time-labour intensive, and they have
variances because only conscious reflection by the participant is assessed. Therefore, attention
to “both the procedure and the coding system should be described in greater depth” (Schellings
et al., p. 968). This information gave this current research a base for thoroughly preparing the
questionnaire and the strategies of coding, and for reviewing transcripts while researching
teachers’ awareness of metacognition.
Conclusion
While reviewing research regarding teacher metacognition, it became quickly apparent
that student metacognition was more widely researched, and there exists a lack of research
regarding teacher metacognition and awareness. The literacy review has made visible the
concerns regarding implementing metacognitive strategies and metacognitive conversation
within the classroom, because they are not yet firmly a part of a teacher’s personal practical

37

knowledge. The literature review also demonstrates how the Reading Apprenticeship
Framework contains possible solutions to the current need for increased awareness of teachers’
metacognition. The literature review has revealed gaps in research regarding teacher
metacognition, thus pointing to the need for more research. Teachers need to practise
metacognitive strategies to make metacognition a core component of their personal practical
knowledge. When this happens, the metacognitive conversation will then become a part of the
teachers’ personal practical knowledge, supporting the “curriculum-as-plan” within the moments
of “curriculum-as-lived” (Aoki, 1993). The goal of continued research should keep the need for
awareness of metacognition at the forefront, nurturing the development of teachers’ personal
practical knowledge; making the teachers as curriculum makers more equipped to model their
thinking while reading in the classroom. The notion of teachers as curriculum makers advocates
that we keep improving by sharing our stories and listening to others’ stories so that we “learn to
live new stories in (our) practices” (Clandinin & Connelly, 1992, p. 393). This collaboration
supports that curriculum serves us best when we look at it as living, one that expands and grows
within each learner/teacher moment. This belief is fundamental to the current research.
Chapter Summary
Chapter Two was a literature review of teacher metacognition. Terms highlighted within
this review were cognition, metacognition, and personal practical knowledge. The RAF was
outlined, explaining its four dimensions as critical in supporting this research. Gaps in research
were explored, which led to the conclusion outlining the need for more research on teacher
metacognition.
Chapter Three outlines the methodology of the narrative inquiry and why this stance is
powerful for the current research of exploring teacher metacognition.

38

Chapter Three:
The Methodology
Chapter Three describes the epistemological and ontological stance of the research,
which leads into the methodology choice of the narrative inquirer. The chapter then outlines the
research method of this current research by restating the problem and the questions, reviewing
ethical considerations, and speaking to data storage. Then the chapter describes the research
setting, the sampling, the details regarding data collection, and the analysis of transcripts. The
chapter concludes with the limitations of the research which are: the small quota purposive
sample and that the analysis may contain bias because of the omission of the students’ voice.
Epistemological and Ontological Stance
Acknowledging one’s ontology, the study of how one perceives reality, is an exercise in
discovering a deeper understanding of objectivists and subjectivists, and how these two stances
can affect any research. Also obtaining a deeper understanding of the researcher’s epistemology,
the idea that there are multiple ways of knowing, helps to understand how the researcher might
create bias or ethical issues in this current research study. It gives insight into how we approach
our view of reality. Knowing the personal stance with these two paradigms helped to position
me in the methods and processes of this research (Krauss and Wahyuni). Göktürk restated
Foucault’s definition that “a paradigm, as an example which defines the intelligibility of the set
to which it belongs and at the same time which it constitutes” (p. 5). This definition reinforced
the fine lines in which paradigms are defined. This study upheld that a teacher’s paradigm may
affect the ability to reflect on metacognition and therefore might create a negative stance around
metacognition. Using narrative inquiry, I noted my participants’ stances and I noted my own
paradigm as I made reflections during the analysis.

39

Because this study focused on the effects that metacognitive strategies and metacognitive
conversations may have on students’ attaining new knowledge from the perspective of their
teachers, and because my stance within this study reflected the belief that students have the
abilities to succeed when given optimal conditions, I acknowledged the bias within the research.
If I thought metacognition and metacognitive conversations were a waste of time, my
professional ethics would not stand the continued practice. My belief in the individual work of
the participants with their students reflected a stance in social constructivism. Therefore, my
stance may have had an impact on a teacher participants’ reflections and their perceptions of
students’ growth.
Narrative Inquiry
Clandinin and Connelly (2000) set the tone of data analysis within this research stance by
asking the question: Why narrative inquiry? They named five tensions that create understanding:
temporality, people, action, certainty, and context. These five tensions can create confusion
within research because they blur the lines between “the grand narrative and narrative thinking”
(Clandinin & Connelly, p. 32). This awareness of story, paired with Dewey’s two inseparable
criteria of experience: continuity and interaction (Clandinin & Connelly, pp. 32-33), formulate
building blocks for research that fit perfectly with this study’s intention of tracking the awareness
of teacher metacognition. This research built a narrative of the teachers’ awareness of
metacognition with the hope that they could deeply reflect upon how metacognition is impacting
student learning from the teacher participants’ perspective. This research helped to fill gaps in
the literature that was currently available regarding teacher metacognition, as noted in Chapter
Two. The narratives that were created wove a tapestry of four teachers who were willing to
make their thinking visible, revealing teacher metacognition.

40

The challenge of this study was to transform the field text of each teacher into an
authentic narrative story that revealed metacognitive thinking. The relationship between the
participants and myself was critical, and therefore, I shared my metacognition and included
myself in the vulnerability of sharing and reflecting. “One of the starting points for narrative
inquiry is the researcher’s narrative of experience, the researcher’s autobiography” (Clandinin &
Connelly, 2000, p. 72). Therefore, the research included my voice as well as the voice of each
participant.
I wrote this study as a narrative inquirer. I collected field text, and then analyzed these
texts so that the participants’ metacognitive story could be told. “One of the starting points for
narrative inquiry is the researcher’s own narrative of experience” (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000,
p. 70), and thus I engaged as this seeker of story knowing that my stance was aligned with
constructivism (Wahyuni, 2012, p. 71) and relativistic (Krauss, 2005, p. 760). People create
their reality and their observations by listening and viewing. (For the purpose of this study,
observations were solely listening to participants’ voices.) Therefore, the teacher participants’
perceptions were relative to them. I believed that when I observed, it was almost impossible for
me not to be subjective and involved. For me to be objective felt like the context of my reality
was not being observed. Therefore, when researching, I followed the methodology and practices
of “qualitative research . . . that posits that there is no objective reality” (Krauss, p. 760).
However, Krauss stressed that methodology should depend on the researcher’s purpose to the
question more than committing to one paradigm (p. 761). If researchers are being honest in
finding data that reflects the truth, they must choose a methodology that best finds the data to
explain the reality to the best of their ability. I believe that research around teacher awareness of
metacognition is best suited to a narrative inquiry, qualitative methodology.

41

The Research Method
This study examined teacher awareness and teacher use of metacognitive practices in
Canadian schools within Manitoba with ethical permission by the Brandon University Research
Ethics Committee (BUREC, Appendix B). This narrative inquiry research created reflective
stories through an analysis of transcripts of interviews. The Metacognitive Awareness Inventory
(MAI) tool activated the participants’ thinking, which helped to tune their reflections and the
qualitative transcripts of the interviews, revealing trends in metacognitive vocabulary and
reflective story. This research has created a narrative of the individual internal dialogue that has
exposed the impact that metacognitive understanding has within teachers who practise
metacognitive conversations and strategies daily within their classrooms.
The Research Problem and Questions
The literature on teacher metacognition was limited at the time of this study. The
majority of the literature centred on student metacognition and there was a call for more
evidence regarding teacher metacognition, so this study sought to capture the metacognitive
story of the teacher participants.
The primary research question was as follows:
•

How does a teacher’s understanding of metacognition influence the development of
metacognitive skills and metacognitive conversations in classroom practices and
routines?

The research sub-questions based on this question were as follows:
•

How does this awareness help influence to the teacher’s decision making within
planning, classroom set up, and daily routines?

42

•

What evidence indicates that the teacher’s understandings of metacognition is making a
positive impact on the teachers’ perceptions of student learning?

The point of this study was to examine how teachers’ knowledge of metacognition would affect
their perceptions of student achievement and therefore then impact the choices they made
regarding how and why they engaged in metacognitive conversations and strategies.
Ethical Considerations
When reflecting on the statement “How have people in this setting constructed their
belief and view?” (Remler & Ryzin, 2015, p. 64), I embraced the stance of how the teacher
participants believed people learn: individuals enter spaces of learning with their own
experiences and realities of life, and therefore must make connections in collaboration with the
people/text around them based on their reality. New knowledge has to be attached to existing
knowledge, and how one perceives one’s act of knowing can make connections look differently
for each person. Teachers who are social constructivists believe that all learning is constructed
through collaboration with peers and teacher. Social constructivists believe that ideas are created
by human activity, so then knowledge is a construct from social events (Kim, 2001, p. 3). Berger
and Luckmann (1966) stated that experiences take place in a “face-to-face” situation and that
these encounters are then a shared reality (p. 52). We all live in a reality that is shared by others.
We all have experiences that are created in a reality that is shared with others. Therefore, it is
through our interactions with people in our world that we create new knowledge. The benefit
from this approach to knowledge is centered on the idea that we are smarter as a collective. We
build knowledge through experiences that are shared; however, it is up to the individual to have
awareness. The collaboration invites new ideas and, therefore, a new opportunity to express new
thinking.

43

Drawbacks of this stance are that we are then limited in the growth potential by the
society in which we live. In order to gain different perspectives beyond our culture/society,
insight and wisdom from within the group need to guide experiences beyond the current reality.
Thus, as the facilitator in this research, knowing my pull to social constructivism, I was mindful
that continuous growth comes from seeking new perspectives; looking for outside sources that
differed from the current reality/culture enriched this research.
Data Storage and Confidentiality
All data and field text were securely stored. The electronic data and paper documents
containing personal information were stored in a locked file cabinet at the researcher’s residence.
Data that is stored on a USB stick was also securely locked in the file cabinet. Any materials in
data format were also be under password protections. I was the only researcher collecting data;
therefore, the participants know that only one person viewed their materials. Pseudonyms were
used to protect individual identities.
The Research Setting
This study took place in rural and urban middle and senior years’ schools in western
Canada. The school division was chosen because of its association with the Reading
Apprenticeship Framework.
Sampling
The sample consisted of four school teachers who volunteered from a school division in
western Canada. In some regard, this sample reflected a type of quota sampling – “dividing the
population into groups or quotas” (Remler & Ryzin, 2015, p. 156) – because there are criteria for
subject area disciplines and an invitation process in the selection of participants. In addition to
quota sampling, purposive sampling – “choosing people who have a unique perspective”

44

(Remler & Ryzin, 2015, p.158) was used. The study explored these teachers’ best practices that
included metacognitive strategies and conversations.
A letter was sent to the school division (Appendix C) to identify the research protocol.
This letter included the following enclosures: a copy of the MAI, Interview Questions and
Reflective Journal Prompts (Appendix D), Copy of Participant’s Consent Form (Appendix E).
Once approval had been obtained from the school division, a letter (Appendix F) was sent to
principals/designates to obtain names and emails of potential participants. Finally, a letter was
sent to the potential participants (Appendix G). This third letter asked whether they were willing
to participate in the study. This letter outlined the procedures and expectations of the study,
including time commitment and approximate duration of the study. The letter stated that the
recipients were identified because of their familiarity with best practices (including but not
limited to metacognitive conversations and/or metacognitive strategies). The letter also stated
that the recipients had been selected because of their desire to create optimal learning
experiences that support student success. Once participants agreed to participate in the study, the
data collection began.
Data Collection
This research was not attempting to define metacognition, but instead wanted to create a
tapestry using a fusion of field texts to make individual stories of metacognitive journeys more
visible. There were two main types of field texts: an invitation to create reflective journal during
the two-week implementation of a metacognitive strategy within the teachers’ classrooms, and
transcriptions of interviews post implementation of the strategy. The role of the narrative
inquirer was to enter into the field of inquiry, being mindful while collecting these field texts.
“Because field text are our way of talking about what passes for data in narrative inquiry and

45

because data tend to carry with them the idea of objective representation of research experience,
it is important to note how imbued field text are with interpretation” (Clandinin & Connelly, p.
93). Therefore, I was mindful of my intent while listening during the interviews. I was
organized and prepared myself so that I was attentive and had an open mindset.
This study was conducted via video conferencing, using FaceTime and Microsoft
Teams™ technology. I used my stance as constructivist to create a welcoming, face-to-face
interview with the participants despite the distance that separated them. Using the video
conferencing tools facilitated personal contact and successful interviews by reducing the
potential complications of travel and weather. Because the teacher participants agreed to be a
part of the study, it was very easy to make appointment times.
Phase One of Data Collection
Phase one of the data collection built the start of the narrative inquiry. Each component
of this package had the purpose of activating the record keeping of each participant’s thoughts
and understandings of metacognition. The phase one package included an electronic link to the
MAI, a request to write a prelude reflection and a list of prelude reflection prompts. Here is a
description of each of these instruments.
Metacognitive Awareness Inventory. The Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI)
was a tool used to activate the participants’ awareness of metacognition. It took approximately
10 minutes to complete.
Prelude reflection. The prelude reflection was 1000 words or less summary of the
strategies that the participants used previously and a brief explanation of why they had chosen to
use these strategies. This took 20-30 minutes approximately.

46

Prelude reflection prompts. This was the written explanation of expectations: “While
thinking about the next two weeks of implementing metacognitive strategies in your classroom,
please reflect on these prompts and write a 1000-word reflective journal. You do not have to use
these questions, however if you wish you might choose one or two to activate your writing.”
1.

Describe some of the activation activities that you use and explain why you use

them.
2.

What is your expectation of student reading during class time?

3.

How do you want your own reading to look like in the classroom?

4.

What are the essential observations you make while students are engaged in reading

during your class?
5.

Describe how you use questioning to activate conversation in a group.

6.

What do you see or hear that would engage you to start a metacognitive conversation

with a student?
7.

Think of a planning time. How do you pick a strategy and explain why you picked

that strategy?
8.

How do you define metacognition? How do you use it in your classroom?

The phase one package included. Phase one package included the following
documentation for each participant:
• a letter (Appendix H) thanking the participant for their participation and voice. This
letter also explained the entire process of the study
• an electronic link to the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (approximately 10 minutes
to complete)

47

• a request to share a prelude reflection (1000 words or less summarizing the strategies
the teachers have used/are using and a brief explanation of why they choose to use
these strategies), to be emailed upon completion to the principal researcher
After the prelude reflection was completed, the participants entered the second phase of data
collection.
Phase Two of Data Collection
Phase two of the data collection had the participants choose a metacognitive strategy that
they then implemented in their classroom for two weeks. Each component of this package had
the purpose of evoking the record keeping of the participants’ thoughts and understandings of
metacognition as they implemented purposeful strategies into the classroom routine.
Communication with me during the implementation of the strategy was encouraged if needed by
the participant. I was available for conversation and clarification via email, texting, video
conferencing and phone calls. The direction of engaging in the strategies for at least two weeks
before the interview was important, because this gave the observations purpose and provided
direction for the teachers’ metacognitive reflection while they were engaged in the metacognitive
conversations and strategies they had chosen. The phase two package included a list of
metacognitive strategies and the description of how to implement the strategy in the classroom
routines, an option of writing reflective journals during the two weeks that they were
implementing their chosen metacognitive strategies, and prompts that would engage this writing.
Here is a description of each of these instruments.
A list of metacognitive strategies. A list of metacognitive strategies and explanations of
each was given to every participant. These definition and explanations were explained in full
within Chapter One. For the purpose of listing the tools within this study, here is a list of

48

strategies: metacognitive funnel, talking to the text, think-a-loud, double-entry logs, and LINK.
The participants picked one or two strategies from the list and they employed them as a routine
in their classrooms for two weeks.
A journal package with prompts. The participants could choose to participate in the
process of reflective journal writing while they actively engaged in metacognitive
conversations/practices for two weeks. The participants were given a journal package with
writing prompts included. The journaling was an option because it would benefit the study to
obtain these reflections; however, the study did not depend on this tool. It encouraged the tool as
a pro-active way of helping teachers track their thinking. The journal writing could assist the
teachers in tracking their thinking and making stronger decisions. The reflective journal could
also assist in capturing the teachers’ voices as they focused on their essential learning outcomes
(based on each of the curricular goals of English, math, science, and social studies). As well, the
optional reflection journal could reveal language that the teacher had used to activate the
students’ metacognitive conversations. However, because journal writing may not necessarily be
a routine in the participants’ lives, it was not expected to become routine during this research
trial. Therefore, it was stressed that although the researcher would appreciate these field notes,
they were not expected from every participant. The journal package was given as an invitation
to the participants to make personal journal reflections during the two weeks. The prompts
provided with the journal package included:
•

Do I see patterns in what the students are saying and doing?

•

Was the strategy I used effective for this assignment?

•

How did my mindset affect how I approached today’s lesson?

•

Is this strategy improving the learning environment?

49

•

Did I do an effective job of communicating my thinking to my students?

•

Have I demonstrated my strengths and weakness to my students?

•

How am I using my strengths to benefit my students in their metacognitive
journey?

The phase two package included. The phase two package included the following
documentation for each participant:
•

a letter (Appendix I) explaining the expectations with phase two, contact
information of the principal investigator, and an invitation via Doodle™ to
make an interview time two weeks from the starting date of implementation of
metacognitive strategies

•

a list of metacognitive strategies and how to implement them in the classroom

•

a journal package with writing prompts

After the two weeks of implementing the metacognitive strategies in the classroom, the
participants entered the third phase of data collection.
Phase Three of Data Collection
Phase three of the data collection concluded with the participants completing an
interview. The interview took place after the two weeks of reflective teaching with awareness
and use of metacognitive strategies and the use of metacognitive conversations within their
classrooms. The phase three package included the interview questions that would be completed
via video conferencing, and a Doodle™ link to set up interview times. Here is a description of
each of these instruments.
Interview. Each interview was conducted in a setting of each participant’s choice. This
social connection was essential, because I wanted to ensure that the participants’ voices were

50

valued and honoured. Every participant chose video conferencing. During the interviews, I was
specifically focused on language choices that the teachers recalled using with students who
displayed miscues or misunderstanding, and when students displayed an understanding that
benefited from a more in-depth inquiry. The meeting place or technology used for each
interview was selected by the participants, requiring little to no travel by them. It was imperative
that I made an effort to ensure that the participants felt relaxed and that their time was used
efficiently. A face-to-face interview was essential, so that I could observe body language and
facial expressions, in order to obtain more information around the metacognitive process.
Talking and reflecting on one’s thinking can be a vulnerable experience, and I wanted to create a
safe and open environment that supported free exchange of ideas and emotions. These
qualitative questions were used within the interview:
1. Think about a silent reading time within the past two weeks! Describe the activity
in the classroom? What were you doing? What were the students doing?
2. Think of a time that you were demonstrating the metacognitive strategy you choose
to the class. Share how this demonstration unfolded.
3. Think of a specific activation strategy that you have used and tell me the story of
how it unfolded in the classroom.
4. Thinking about the last two weeks. What did a class conversation look like in your
classroom? How do you set the stage for a class discussion?
5. Tell me about a time that you read to the class, and included your metacognition.
How did that go?
6. Think of a time when a student displayed a misunderstanding. What happened?
Tell me the story of this memory.

51

7. Imagine that you and your students were having a perfect learning scenario. Tell
me what that looks like and feels like for you.
8. Think of a time you were demonstrating a debugging strategy. Tell me the story of
how that came about and how it unfolded.
9. How long have you been implementing metacognition into your classroom
routines?
10. What are the aspects of implementing metacognition into the classroom that you
believe benefit yourself and your students?
It was my goal to make the participants feel safe and proud of their work with students.
Phase three package included. The phase three package included the following
documentation for each participant:
•

an email (Appendix J) with a link with the interview questions, which allowed the
participants to preview the interview questions prior to the interview.

•

a Doodle™ link to confirm the interview times

This phase concluded the formal collection of data from each participant.
Phase Four of Data Collection
Phase four of the data collection is the bridge that connects the collection of the field text
with the data analysis. Prior to analyzing the data, the direct transcriptions created would be
shared with each individual participant who requested. None of the participants wanted to see
the transcripts. They all expressed a feeling of trust and encouragement around the research.
Therefore, the phase four communications with the participants included:
•

a letter (Appendix K) thanking the participants for their insight and reflections

Therefore, the data collection was completed once the transcriptions were made.

52

Data Analysis
The transcription analysis provided a tapestry of stories that reflected teacher
understanding of metacognitive strategies and their perception of student success: perceptions of
gained knowledge, recognition of the teachers’ stance, and understanding of their professional
practices. The analysis started as I personally transcribed each interview. While I listened and
typed, I jotted down notes of interest. Once I had completed the first teacher’s transcription, I
had a baseline of vocabulary and scenarios that were directly speaking to the teacher
participant’s awareness and actions around metacognition. Upon transcribing the second
teacher’s interview, vocabulary and scenarios aligned with the first interview. By the third and
fourth interviews, there were clear and common threads that became the six threads of teacher
practice involving metacognition within this research. My narrative inquiry voice interwove four
unique tapestries of teachers’ metacognitive narratives, using the six threads found in this
research as I reflected on their use of metacognitive conversations and metacognitive strategies
within their daily practice.
Limitations
The findings of this study have to be seen in the light of two limitations. First, the
research had a quota purposive sample size that may have contained bias. Second, the
qualitative analysis of the narratives could also have contained a bias because it was seeking only
the teacher participants’ voice and there is an omission of student voice.
The Quota Purposive Sample Size
This research had a small sample size. In some regard, this small sample may reflect a
type of quota sampling – “dividing the population into groups or quotas” (Remler & Ryzin,
2015, p. 156) – because there were criteria for subject area disciplines and an invitation process

53

in the selection of participants. The sample size was limited to four participants in order to keep
the study’s scope realistic for its objective. The quota criterion was that of middle and senior
years’ school teachers. The quota sample was created in part by the selection of teachers who
had taken the Reading Apprenticeship training. The framework of this study created stability
around terminology while interviewing and collecting participants’ reflections. However, using
a broader scope of participants who may or may not have had RAF training could have yielded a
wider range of responses.
In addition to quota sampling, the interview collection used purposive sampling –
“choosing people who have a unique perspective” (Remler & Ryzin, 2015, p.158). When
identifying the teachers who participated in the research, their participation in Reading
Apprenticeship training was an indicator of who could be included in the group. Therefore, this
quota sampling may be considered biased because of the research participants’ common
language that resulted from their metacognition training, leaving out the possibility of hearing
metacognitive reflections by teachers who did not have RA training.
The sampling bias was that these teachers had an insight to understanding the
significance of student engagement, and had either a systematic approach to attaining this or a
unique mastery in creating a class climate that promoted connections between prior knowledge
and new knowledge. The involvement in this study also may have affected the attitudes that the
teachers had toward student engagement, making them more aware of their influence and
therefore enhancing their practices.
The Qualitative Analysis of the Narratives
The primary limitation is that the qualitative analysis could contain a bias because it
omitted the student voice. My goal was to study the impact that teachers’ metacognitive

54

awareness had on their use of the metacognitive conversation and metacognitive strategies within
their classroom. Ultimately, the research aimed to uphold the practice of metacognition within
the classroom because the literature, as described in Chapter Two, indicated that students benefit
from metacognitive practices. Therefore, although the goal was to track teacher metacognition,
this research may have made a positive impact on the students, as well as increase the awareness
that the teacher participants had of their professional practices.
The stance of the student would have been good to hear; however, activating the
students’ voices might have blurred the focus of this study, which sought to capture the internal
dialogue of teacher participant metacognition. Therefore, I observed only each teacher
participant’s understanding of student success, because this directly affected the teacher
participant’s next steps in providing interventions that affected the students’ learning as
perceived by the teacher participant. As students experienced failure or success, they might have
demonstrated apathy, which may have shifted the teacher participant’s attitude, which would
have affected the teacher participant’s stance or ability to analyze needs or next steps. It is
important to remember that a researcher’s stance on learning may be very different from the
stance of the research participants. Therefore, this study respected that each student’s voice was
heard simply through the participant’s observation. I was open to the possibility that an opposite
bias may emerge within this research, because “only the participants with the fixed mindset
showed the decline” in Dweck’s (2008) study (p. 57). Considering the circumstances of many
other variables in a participant's life, a negative bias toward metacognition and metacognitive
conversation could influence the results. I acknowledged that I was a narrative inquirer who
observed by listening to hear the participants’ understanding, and then created a tapestry of
stories of each teacher participants’ metacognition.

55

Thinking about an inquiry in narrative terms allows us to conceptualize the inquiry
experience as a storied one on several levels. Following Dewey, our principal interest in
understanding experience is the growth and transformation in the life story that we as a
researcher and our participant's author. Therefore, difficult as it may be to tell a story, the
more difficult but important task is the retelling of stories that allow for growth and
change. . . . [I]n the construction of narratives of experience there is a reflexive
relationship between living a life story, telling a life story, retelling a life story and
reliving a life story. (Clandinin & Connelly, 1992, p. 71)
Thus, this research sought to create the reflections of the teachers’ internal dialogues, not only to
provide for better metacognitive understanding but also realizing that this research may enrich
classroom practices and success for students. However, one must consider how the limitations of
the small quota sample size and the possible bias of the analysis may have affected the results.
Chapter Summary
Chapter Three outlined the epistemological and ontological stance of the research, which
led into the methodology choice of the narrative inquirer. The chapter then outlined the research
method of this current research by restating the problem and the questions, reviewing ethical
considerations, and speaking to data storage. The chapter then described the research setting, the
sampling, the data collection, and the analysis of transcripts. Finally, the chapter concluded with
the limitations of the research: the small quota purposive sample and the omission of student
voice in the analysis.
Chapter Four outlines the findings collected through the interview process: capturing the
memories and reflections around metacognitive conversations and strategies within each
participant’s classroom.

56

Chapter Four:
The Research Findings
Chapter Four outlines the findings collected through the interview process, capturing the
memories and reflections around metacognitive conversations and strategies within each
participant’s classroom. Chapter Four first introduces the four research participants.
Pseudonyms have been used to preserve the identity of each participant: Addison, Bradan,
Christopher and Daniella. The interview responses reveal how metacognition and metacognitive
strategies were implemented and impacted the teachers’ perceptions of student achievement.
The interview responses are formatted so that each participant’s reflection can be heard directly
after the posed interview question. The chapter concludes with a chapter summary, leading into
the six threads that connect the findings from the research.
Research Participants
The four participants willingly shared their metacognition and told stories of the
metacognitive strategies working in their classrooms. Addison, Bradan, Christopher, and
Daniella had taken RA training. They were teaching in various leveled classrooms within urban
and rural locations within southern Manitoba.
Addison
Addison taught English language art (ELA), math, science, social studies, and art to
grade 5 students in a German community found in southern Manitoba. Her small town had about
600 people. Her K-8 school population was about 160 students, and they had one class of every
grade. They had several students who would fall under EAL criteria because they came from a
Low-German background. Although students might have been fluent in English, they certainly
had parents and family that communicated with them in Low-German more than English, or as

57

much in both languages, daily. Addison and three colleagues had recently taken the Reading
Apprenticeship (RA) training, and so this group of four collaborated and regularly reflected on
their metacognitive practices. This small group was less than half of the staff population, and
Addison believed that the early years’ teachers of her school had used metacognitive strategies
that were more suited for their younger students.
Bradan
Bradan taught social studies and math to grade eight students in a K-12 school in a small
southern Manitoba town. His school had a student population of around 225. In his grade 8
classroom, there were 26 students, which would be considered a big class for the school. The
average class size would probably have been 16 to 17 students. Unlike Addison, Bradan was not
sure whether other teachers at his school would know what metacognition meant. Four teachers
had taken the RA training, and this group got together once every six weeks. This group was
also supported by a divisional literacy coach, who came in and helped to facilitate reflections of
the teachers’ practices. Because this group supported each other through the various
metacognitive strategies, Bradan considered metacognition and its use within his school a newer
concept. The administration supported this group of teachers by giving them four days in the fall
and four days in the spring, dedicated to observation: “We go in and observe each other, and we
debrief with the support of a literacy coach. We are working toward placing metacognition at
the centre of our lessons, asking [metacognitive] questions throughout the lesson, instead of just
at the end. Trying to establish our metacognitive practice throughout our lessons, making it
more than just an exit slip.” He believed that metacognition was a priority within his school
because their Reading Apprenticeship meetings had been happening before the regular school
day. Those morning meetings demonstrated the dedication those teachers had toward improving

58

their practice, because they were giving of their own time to collaborate around metacognitive
strategies.
Christopher
Christopher taught multiple grades (7-10) social studies, ELA, art, drama, and
information and communication technology (ICT) at a school that had 350 students from K-12 in
a small town in the southeast corner of Manitoba. He had taken the RA training approximately
five years previous to the research. Christopher believed that his school had a positive mindset
about metacognition and that most of the staff believed it was a useful tool. He said, “I think a
lot of teachers actively are engaged in talking about metacognition with their students. We have
talked about it a lot in our school division over the last couple of years.” He believed that the use
of metacognitive strategies in the classroom was driven by the teachers’ knowing that it was
beneficial for their students. Although he did not speak of committees or teacher groups that
were actively reflecting on their personal practical knowledge with metacognition at their centre,
he stated that “It's just kind of what we do!”
Daniella
Daniella taught grades 9 and 11 English, grades 9 and 10 Reading Is Thinking (RIT), and
senior (grades 11-12) musical theatre in a large, high school. The population of her school was
approximately 1100+ students, with 60 teachers and 20+ educational assistants (EA). Daniella
knew of three other staff members who had taken formal RA training. The teachers who had
taken the RA training talked and reflected together because it was central to what they were
doing daily. However, they did not get together as a regular Professional Learning Community
(PLC) to improve their metacognitive practices. “We are an unofficial group that really supports

59

each other.” She thought that 50% of the teaching staff knew about metacognition. However,
she was unsure what population were using it as a daily strategy to deepen student learning.
Interview Narratives
Interview responses are the narrative captured from the transcription of the interviews
that were done through Facetime and Microsoft Teams™ conferencing. Each response follows
the interview question consistently in the same order: Addison, Bradan, Christopher, and
Daniella.
Question One
Think about a (silent) reading time within the past two weeks. Describe the activity in
the classroom. What were you doing? What were the students doing?
Addison. Silent reading time had a natural fluidness in Addison's classroom. Students
engaged in books with a sense of enjoyment; some would be enjoying a book, some appreciating
the electronic device that would have only been available to them within the school. For the
most part, they would all be reading or quietly having conversations in pairs about a book.
“Some of them will just sort of naturally pair up with each other and have a little quiet
conversation or share a book.” She expressed wanting to promote a natural sense of wonder
around books and reading.
She used this silent reading time to check in on students and focus on individual students
reading needs. An EA was also actively engaged in reading with a group of students with a set
purpose/focus. Addison's usual reluctant students were known to her, and she had a firm grasp
on how they tried to avoid reading. She used firm boundaries and a sense of humour to keep
them engaged. “My goal has been to spend about two weeks targeting something and then move
on to somebody else. However, my two weeks sometimes stretches out a little bit.” Addison

60

acknowledged that automaticity and habits sometimes took away from focused sessions with
students and that, sometimes, too much time passed without a metacognitive check-in from
herself. “I have about four students who stand out right now as struggling readers. I'm trying to
rotate them through having some one-on-one time with me or the EA.” She noted that
sometimes she felt the need to be more intentional with her time with these students. This
purposeful reading intervention was an aspect of Addison's reading time that she continued to
work on improving.
Silent reading in Addison's class was a community event in which reading was modelled,
supported, and encouraged.
Bradan. Silent reading in Bradan’s social studies class had a set purpose. He shared a
story that had the students going back into Ancient Rome. The purpose of the silent reading time
focused on these two questions: “How do you know what you're reading is a fact?” versus “How
do you know if it's been embellished?”
Bradan talked of the importance of scaffolding the students’ reading and thinking. They
used the grade 8 social studies textbook, individual stories, and news articles in magazines. He
shared stories and readings about the death of Julius Caesar and how he had done an activation
activity of who Julius Caesar was.
His scaffolding led the class into a silent reading time in which more in-depth reading
took place to distinguish fact from embellishment. The students all had their reading material,
and they each had made T-charts. “We have been using a straightforward T-chart to track our
thinking. To get the students to track their thinking during reading, I prompted them with: How
do you get your information down? How do you know which knowledge is necessary? On this
T-chart, we also used sticky notes. As the students were reading in their textbook, they would

61

write down a question or what they're thinking, like using some of the Talk to Text strategies to
track their thinking.”
Bradan’s silent reading time was not always silent. It was often scattered with time for
clarifying conversations. He recalled working with the students on a worksheet before reading:
having the students think and talk about “What is a fact?” and “What do we know a fact to be?”
He recalled a conversation with a student who took their knowledge of math to explain their
thinking around defining a fact,
Bradan: “What is a fact?”
Student: “Well, a fact can be like a math answer! For example, a math fact is 6 multiplied
by 7 is 36. This is a math fact!”
Bradan: “Why is that a fact?”
Bradan was gently guiding the student into deeper thinking, probing them to answer the question
with a more profound sense of knowing. Bradan reflected, “Just asking all those who, what, why
questions to the students instead of telling them.”
Bradan described how his silent reading time had quick and quiet conversation times
called elbow partner talks. “We do turn-and-talk quite a bit. They turn and together come up
with a definition. We then chart those up on the board, write them all down, and then come up
with a class definition.” Bradan recalled, “The class definition was a fact in social studies, is
something that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” He marvelled at how the students
wanted to have doubt in their definition because “they said in their mind, history does change.”
Bradan continued the story of silent reading within social studies as they discovered and defined
what embellishment meant. “We chose the word embellishment because we didn't want to use

62

fiction, because the story of Julius Caesar was not made up. So, the class came up with
embellishment because it was making the story sound better.”
After all of the scaffolding, the class then read a three-paragraph story about the death of
Julius Caesar. As they read, they pulled out “What are the facts we know?” and “What are the
embellishments?” He described how the story was read once quietly and individually, then with
a partner, all the time recording on their T-chart all of the facts and embellishments they found
with their partner. Then they went from a group of two to a group of four. And then they did
similar recording the facts and embellishments. After the group of four, they did a quick debrief
as a class “What do we have?” and “What are we thinking?” Bradan also described how he and
the EA were interacting with the students, trying to get them to think about why they are
recording their thinking.
Bradan recalled that collaboration and community were important to incorporate in the
classroom reading routines. He expressed that he practised “elbow conversations” because the
students needed to work on their communication skills. He believed that silent reading became
more impactful when collaboration and communication skills were a part of a silent reading
routine. Bradan’s routines around silent reading had a purpose, and the silent reading time had
more impact on student understanding.
Christopher. Silent reading time, in Christopher’s class, had all students reading for the
most part. It was a time when students were individually engaged in a book of their choice. He
recalled that he might have had a few students who became off task and needed a gentle
reminder to return to reading. He described a calm room in which he modelled reading himself.
There was an awareness of chunking time. “I have a few that may not stay on task. They can do

63

it in short chunks, but then they need to be reminded to refocus and get back on it.” He
described that his students were usually compliant and listened well.
Daniella. Daniella, who taught multiple grades in high school, started each of her classes
with 15 minutes of silent reading time (except for her musical theatre class). She recalled that
silent reading looked differently within each classroom. “The grade 11 classes usually settle in
and read, except for a handful of kids who are reluctant readers! In an ideal world, I would be
reading at the same time as them, but alas, it was early in the semester, so I would spend time
walking around and checking in with the kids and encouraging the reluctant readers: What are
you reading? and How do you like it?" She recalled the need to engage the reluctant readers
with little conversations to create a relationship. She also recalled how the routine improved
from September to the end of the term.
Daniella also shared the importance of having students create personal reading goals,
which helped the reading because it then had a purpose for the students. She shared the story of
one reluctant reader, “His goal was to read one page. And you know, he was doing it! So silent
reading can be done, and he was doing his goal. We had gotten to the point where we were
ready to move to the next stages (in that morning class).”
She recalled that silent reading looked very different in her grade 9 Reading is Thinking
class. “We just ended up reading aloud together. Independent reading wasn't happening. I
could get them to flip through books! That was the best we could do there! I would generally
read aloud to them.”
Daniella also reflected on how the time within the day presented different challenges to
her silent reading routines. “My period 5, after lunch class of grade 9 students, took a little bit of
time to settle because they were pretty hyped up from lunchtime. Eventually, we could get them

64

to settle! However, I had one boy, at first who wasn't reading at all, but then I found him the
audiobook version, so he actually would put his headphones and be listening/reading!” Tackling
the different needs of students was a part of Daniella’s struggles and successes in creating
successful silent reading routines in her classroom.
Question Two
Think of a time that you were demonstrating the metacognitive strategy you choose to the
class. Share how this demonstration unfolded.
Addison. The metacognitive strategy chosen by Addison was Talking to the Text. She
demonstrated this strategy with a short passage of text from a personal novel that she had been
reading. She recalled, “I found myself having to go back and rereading this passage a few times
to make sense of it because the novel was set about 300 years ago. It was an official government
message about a battle. The gist of it was not that complicated! It was primary, but the words;
there were so many words trying to say this simple message.” This authentic reading struggle
inspired her to share her metacognition with her students.
She used the document camera to put the text visible to all students on the screen, and she
talked through her thinking using the first short paragraph. She recalled that while she was
sharing her thinking, she paused and the students started to jump in, sharing their thinking. This
gave Addison an increased sense of confidence because she knew that the students were highly
engaged. They continued with the Talking to the Text strategy, which highlighted a
misunderstanding around the word engagement. A discussion ensued:
Addison: “What do you think of when you read the word engaged?”
Student: “Well . . . people getting married.”
Addison: “Well, that doesn't make sense! Right?”

65

Addison recalled how the Talking to the Text strategy opened up opportunities to notice their
thinking. Addison expressed how reading was complicated. The class discussed how words
could have multiple meanings, and that the work of the reader was to identify what makes sense
and to understand the context. She described how the class was starting to pick up on what she
was doing with her thinking, and she also described how she annotated on the passage as she
read.
The next step of the Talking to the Text strategy was then releasing the remainder of the
passage to students. “Then I just gave it to them to go on with a partner, and they easily could!”
In the end, I said, “So, what happened in this reading passage? And they figured it out! But, I
think it mattered a lot that I had told them, I struggled with this!”
Addison realized that a short and challenging section of a novel was an excellent way to
teach Talk to Text. She shared her own struggles and vulnerability, which demonstrated
authentically that even adults need to use their metacognitive awareness to comprehend fully
while reading. This vulnerability also helped to set the stage to share understandings or
misunderstandings in the safety of her classroom.
Bradan. Bradan recalled a demonstration of Talking to the Text that he did with a class
during a September day, shortly after the first time that he had taken the Reading Apprenticeship
Training. He described how he had the document camera set up. He started reading and sharing
his thinking about an article. He shared everything going through his mind. He was circling
everything and annotating his thinking in the margins. He recalled, “I just dove right in. And by
the end of it, I realized that I showed them way too much at once. It was like . . . a question here,
and an exclamation here and underlines and circling.” He had realized that the students were lost
and overwhelmed. He then decided that he needed to pick just one aspect of his thinking: he

66

chose to question. The next lesson had a focus or purpose on the Talking to the Text: “How do
we pick up the questions we are thinking about when looking at a new article?” Bradan recalled
how this focus on one aspect of thinking was essential to creating success using this strategy.
Christopher. Christopher recalled that his use of metacognitive strategies tended to be at
the end of activities with his groups. “I do this to get feedback on what the students have thought
about the process.” He shared how he modelled the reflection as a natural process. He described
this reflection by having conversations with students that start with a prompt, “This is what I
noticed about how it went” or “In reflection, here are some things that I would change.” And
then he would invite student reflections with, “What is your feedback?” He created a reflective
conversation. Christopher talked of the need for simplicity and not creating more paperwork for
himself or the students. He reflected that this routine whip-around had become a part of the
students’ routines and that they appreciated that their voices mattered and that there was a time to
hear their reflections.
Daniella. Daniella’s metacognitive strategy revolved around an inferencing strategy:
“What does it tell us?” “What does it not tell us?” She recalled a story of the class looking at an
article of the week, which was about a protest. They started by looking at the photo and what the
caption was saying. On the board, she had written “What is it saying?” and “What is it not
saying?” The gist of the article had projected a tone from the Prime Minister of Canada, but
what the article was saying was that the prime minister was being ridiculed for his statement.
This became enlightening for the students, and an Ah-Ha moment for Daniella.
Daniella recalled that this process was useful not only for the students, but for her
“because inferencing is something that I do unconsciously, and so it was important to see this
process unfold for the students and to see the deeper connections they were making.” She

67

continued to reflect, “I tend to whiz past these moments, so it was helpful for all of us to see the
impact of slowing down and tracking why the tone of the article can make a difference to our
thinking.” In her reflection, Daniella was in awe of how much thinking was revealed by just
looking at the picture and the caption, and how much deeper the students then went within the
article. “This was very cool for me. The image was the woman sitting with photos of the
murdered and missing indigenous women. They were singing and creating a memory. The kids
saw this and expressed their confusion, as they thought the protest was about a pipeline. This
was interesting. Seeing their process: the moving away from thinking of a pipeline to their
thinking towards the intended political thinking.”
Daniella had created a safe environment that supported metacognitive conversations.
These metacognitive conversations created a deeper understanding of tone when the
understanding of context was addressed.
Question Three
Think of a specific activation strategy that you have used and tell me the story of how it
unfolded in the classroom.
Addison. An activation strategy that Addison used often was a Know, Want to know,
Learn (KWL) chart. She described how she mostly used the first two stages of the KWL chart.
“We usually don't get around to the learned part, but we will start with what you already know
about a subject.” Addison recalled the growth she saw in her teaching through the use of this
activation strategy. “It's funny because I've heard about KWL for all the years I've been
teaching, but I feel like this year, I'm using it in a way that has more meaning for the students. I
see why this activation matters and how I can productively use this to benefit students.” She
described how activating students with what they already knew invited many voices to enter the

68

classroom conversation. “The reason I like this activation is because I feel it gives any of the
students access to participating.” She spoke of using this activation during their body systems
unit in science before discussing the digestive system.
I had them write a list: What do you already know about the digestive system? My
thinking is that they all eat, so they all have something they should be able to say. Then
I'll usually pair that with give-one get-one, where they'll get up with their list, and go
around the room collecting others' thinking. I'll tell them by the end of that exchange
they need to have at least three things on their list, giving them a focus or goal.
Addison addressed activation and ensured that all students participated in this activity.
She described how some students tried to avoid participating, and this activation, coupled
with the give-one get-one, increased student participation. “I've been finding that this activation
is a perfect way for those kids, who sit there the whole five minutes thinking they don't know
what to write down, but then they hear things . . . and then they are saying, Oh yeah, right! I
knew that!” She described how she observed all the students writing ideas down, and in the end
they all contributed to the whole group conversation. However, her routine of activating students
into deeper understanding did not stop with just a group conversation. She described that during
the large-group conversation, she encouraged them to continue to add to their lists. “I will
encourage them: If you hear something good, write it down! It doesn't hurt to have as many as
you can get.” This exchange with peers and paper was her way of getting them to keep adding to
their lists; this was her way of deepening their connections to the topic. These were strategies
that Addison found increased student engagement.
Addison continued to describe how a similar routine of thinking and give-one get-one are
used with the “Want to know” section of the KWL chart. “What do you wonder or want to know

69

about this topic? Write some things down, then talk to your elbow partner, and then we share it
out. They start to get more curious and ask more questions with this stage.” Addison noted that
these routines promoted the need to listen to each other. Students were finding their voices, and
they were learning the aspects of listening that increased their understanding of a subject.
Addison described how she had focused on improving this routine within her classroom this
year. “I had not done it in my classroom before this year. I had done it as a participant at
professional developments, and I feel like it's such a good way to engage thinking in the kids
because I have some kids who are just very reluctant to write. It is such a good opportunity for
me to hear what they're thinking, too.”
Bradan. Bradan recalled an activation strategy that he consistently used with a group in
his grade 5 class. When the students came into math class, they engaged in a brain teaser on the
board. He recalled that earlier that year one student said, “Why are we doing this? This isn't
math.” And he replied, “It is math! You are problem-solving right now.” Bradan spoke to how
this activation led to terrific conversations. He recalled that he continued to use this activation
with his current grade 8 students, usually with more complex problems. He spoke to the
resilience that grown within the older group. “It might take them three or four days to figure out
the brain teaser.” After a couple days, some students would have completed it, and they would
wait for a majority of the class to complete it also before having a full group discussion. Bradan
recalled the keenness of a couple of his students who would be determined to figure out the brain
teaser. Bradan added that his activation brain teaser was always accompanied by other work
posted on the board beside it. When students completed the brain teaser, they continued with the
other work. When the brain teaser stumped students, they had more work to move their thinking

70

on. The activation became a seamless routine that guided the students into their math thinking
for the day.
Christopher. Christopher described an activation process that he did to engage the
students more deeply into historical fiction. This activation was thoroughly planned with the
purchase of many different picture books written by great authors and bought specifically for this
process. The books were purposefully chosen to activate multiple reading stages. He set up
different stations around the room. He described, “We were looking at the story itself, which
was historical fiction, and then we were also looking at some story elements, which we were
going to look at more deeply with the novel study.” Christopher highlighted that the stations
with the picture books were a more neutral way for any student to access the story because the
picture books were shorter text; even the reluctant readers could become activated. Christopher
recalled the level of enjoyment and participation.
I believe that it helped that the process had them getting up and moving around the
classroom to do the different stations. This is not something I'm comfortable with
because it takes a lot of work, but it was good. They were engaged with it.
Daniella. Daniella described how she activated students consistently with quick writes.
She usually had a question that started the students’ quick writes. The specific story highlighted
was when she and the class were going to read an article about cell phone usage in the
classroom. She had the class write a quick write with the question “Do you think cell phones
should be in the classroom?” She set her timer, and the students wrote. The routine continued
with a share of their writes with their table groups. Then the class formulated their thinking into
a pros and cons campaign. They made big pros and cons lists at their table groups, and then she
shared several articles that they read over a couple of days. “Every time we read a new article,

71

we would return to their original pros/cons list, and then we had a big debate.” In total, they
looked at several articles and also went into policies from different schools. Daniella was
excited by the engagement of every student. She recalled how this activation created intrinsic
motivation for the students to return to their individual quick writes with the focus on whether
their stance stayed the same or changed, and why. Daniella chose this activation to lead the
students to synthesize their ideas with more in-depth thinking. This activation supported their
thinking process so that they could use their reading as evidence of why their stance had stayed
the same or changed.
Question Four
Think about the last two weeks. What did a class conversation look like in your classroom? How
do you set the stage for a class discussion?

Addison. Addison spoke to the fact that she and her students had conversations all the
time, and yet she had trouble picking out a time when she crafted a discussion instead of it just
happening. She spoke of a routine that she had within her classroom that had students turning
and talking to an elbow partner before larger group discussions. “I want them to have had
exposure to something, and then that way they again can say their idea or their partner’s idea, but
regardless, they can take credit for it.” In her group of students, she described that most, if not
all, of the students, participated. “It's a pretty big bunch, and there is fair participation. I do see
the same few [students] are the more reluctant ones.” She spoke to how the routine of turn-andtalk helped these reluctant students who were not always tuned in, because it gave them a safe
place to share before a large-group discussion. Addison described how she tried to limit her role
in the turn-and-talk conversations and added that these couple conversations enabled her to walk
around and listen, checking in on students’ thinking. She confided that stepping back and letting
the student take control was an aspect of her teaching that she wanted to improve. When she did
72

step back, she heard excellent questions and ideas. She could probe thinking with questions –
“What do you think they mean?” and “Why do you think that is happening?” – alternatively
providing opportunity for the students to be the ones posing more profound questions. She
recalled that the sharing of ideas was also promoted in her classroom as the students did a lot of
partner reading and partner work. She recalled, “There are a lot of small conversations
happening, or small groups because they are sitting in groups at their desks. So sometimes great
discussions are going on that I am not a part of – which is good! I listen in then.” Addison also
spoke to the importance of setting the stage for students to not feel scared to make a mistake.
She said, “It is so important! I think we have done, and we do, so much work together that they
are not afraid to get feedback from each other. Moreover, they see the value in what other
students think.” She recalled this story.
Today we had somebody from our local radio station come to our school. They record the
kids' reading the school day calendar, and I have a group of keener kids who wanted to
do this and wanted to do it well. We have been practicing these little scripts for a week.
I told them that they do not have to memorize it. The first thing they did that morning
was keyword practice, and if you thought somebody was talking too fast, they needed to
tell them that. They were giving each other feedback, and they were okay with it! None
of them were hurt by other students’ comments. They were taking the feedback as
essential to doing a good job. I think we have done so much work together that they just
see the benefit of hearing what somebody else is saying, and do not take it personally or
as a personal attack.
Addison’s story demonstrated that her students trusted each other, and they trusted a process that
included a time to listen and a time to share their thinking.

73

Bradan. Bradan recalled the need to monitor conversations within his classroom
because three or four students would have dominated a conversation.
I think the big thing over the last couple weeks has been being way more intentional
about doing the [optimal learning model]: I do, we do, you do, and then following that
pattern consistently. I think it allows the students who might not always want to answer,
now answer, because they have talked to a partner and then a small group. They are now
more likely to give their point of view because a couple of people have validated it before
they voice it to a larger group. That has been helpful. Because, otherwise, especially in
that class, three or four kids would dominate the conversation all the time. I like this
process because I am intentional and saying you do have to wait.
Bradan compared his current group to a group that he had the previous year. He described the
group the previous year as a much smaller group, about 13 students, and extremely quiet. They
would not participate in the whole-group conversations. “Well, last year, it was a matter of
slowing things down a little. That group was just naturally very quiet.” Bradan reflected on how
the same strategy used to distribute student’s voices and control dominant participants could also
be used to increase reluctant or quiet students’ voices within a very quiet group.
Christopher. Christopher spoke of his intentions around starting a conversation because
he believed that through conversation, the students would dig deeper into an assigned reading.
He talked about how he engaged students with a whip-around the classroom. “I will try to
engage as many people as possible. The talkers will always talk and pipe up. Sometimes I have
had students talk first with table partners before going around. Then we go group to group so
that everyone has had a voice.” He spoke to how this method minimized the talkers and let the
quieter ones have their chance within their group.

74

He described that class conversations were very intentional when he wanted the students
to read and pay attention to the author’s intent.
My focus will be who, what, when, where, why, of the article. I will quite often try to get
a discussion going after reading almost any text just because I want their input into it
before we write about something. Sometimes, the conversation has come about because
somebody mentioned their insights after finishing reading and then we dig into that a
little more.
Christopher’s intentions led the students to stronger connections and more evidence, increasing
their engagement in the reading and the framework with which they were building their writing.
Daniella. Daniella spoke of setting the stage for a conversation with a quick write that
activated all students, including her introverted students. She spoke to how this helped prepare
her students for whole-group conversations. She used writing, elbow conversations, and smallgroup conversations to scaffold students’ thinking before the whole-group discussion.
I would start with a quick write because that allows those introverted kids to get their
thoughts together. I have to work hard at is not letting the loud kids dominate the
conversation. There are always really excited students who have something to say! So
that is where I find the journals are beneficial: that writing piece provides a means of
communication. I read them, and I pull ideas from the quieter kid. I then get the kids
reflecting on that by going to talk with an elbow partner for about 2 minutes and then
expanding that conversation to a table talk. The students know that somebody at the table
is going to report to the rest of the class and then we all speak about it as a class.
One time, we were working on a poem, and the kids brainstormed what they
thought the big ideas were, and then every table took a big idea and looked at the poem,

75

and then they presented to the class, and then we had a discussion about each main idea,
and as our conversation unfolded, we added to our group thinking to the poster.
Sometimes we will also do a gallery walk before a class conversation. We put the posters
up on the board with the big ideas and their table talk notes, and then they take sticky
notes, and they add more ideas and connections to the poster paper. Then we go back
and look at the posters, and our class conversations are focused on what the class has
pulled out of the poem. This process gives the students substantial evidence to then write
about.
Daniella’s reflections made it clear that the progression from individual thinking to large-group
thinking was scaffolded with the intention to deepen individual thinking. Her routine carefully
crafted conversations to strengthen students’ thinking and writing.
Question Five
Tell me about a time that you read to the class and included your metacognition. How
did that go?
Addison. Addison shared the story of her reading the novel Marley and Me. She spoke
of her authentic love of dogs and her enjoyment of the book. She relished in the fact that the
kids' version of the novel was full of similes and metaphors that gave detailed visual information.
She loved how the author used these literary devices to make the dog and his actions more
meaningful. As she read, she realized how powerful this novel would be for her students, so she
decided to share an excerpt with her class. As she was reading, she shared her metacognition.
As I read, I found that I would stop and say “Here it said he took off like a rocket ship”
and I would pause and I shared with students: “This makes me ask myself what does that
look like?” and the students respond with, “super-fast.” So quickly, the value of sharing

76

my thinking process was just getting them to realize that there was great language in
books. If you don't stop to just think about it, you don't realize why it's there or the real
value that it adds to the book. There were so many similes and metaphors, and the
students started noticing these and attaching meaning to the literal ideas.
Addison realized that her display of metacognition had made a significant impact on the
students’ thinking because they independently started identifying similes and metaphors that they
found in the books that they were reading. They were so excited that they would stop and share
what they had found within their reading. One of the students, whom Addison described as
unlikely to catch on quickly, used two similes in the next story that he wrote, and she added that
he had used them well. She recalled, “I thought that was great! [The students] were paying
attention to what they were reading and then using what they were learning in their writing!”
Addison shared her thought process and included why she found the similes and
metaphors so impactful. Addison had made visible connections that the students would not have
seen without her explicit modelling of teacher metacognition.
Bradan. Bradan described his metacognition within his math class as a part of an
Optimal Learning Model (OLM). He described how he shared his routine of reading a piece of
writing entirely without stopping. He said that regardless of the subject, math or social studies,
this was his preferred way to orient himself to the reading. He said, “I always will read it
through once. That's my preference as a reader.” This sharing of his preference as a reader was
strong modelling of why he made this reading choice. “Even if I am reading a story to the class
in social studies, I will read it all the way through. I am honest with them about this, and I will
say, “I don't want to stop half-way! I want to read it!” Then, after reading the passage/article, he
told the students that he would go back to reread it with a purpose. “In math, I will always go

77

back and ask, what is the problem asking me to do?” He described how reading a math problem
looks.
I will have the problem on the board, and the students will also have a copy of it in front
of them. I will reread it and then say, “I think it is asking me . . .” Then, I will start to
chart it out, sharing the strategy I used. Then I go back and reread it again, thinking
“What information do I have?” Then I go back into the problem and grab the information
I need. Then I will ask, “What operations am I going to have to use to get this?” and in
math, I will almost always draw my problem out. I will chart it, I will diagram it a bit,
and then I will solve it.
Bradan described that his example was a description of his math “I do” within the OLM. He
stated that as he was modelling, and the students would follow along. This part of the math
lesson displayed his math thinking. Then the students participated in a “we do” when he would
put the students into partners, and they would engage in a similar problem. He gradually
released the students into independent work on a similar problem. “Once I am confident with
them, then they are on their way, and away they go.”
Christopher. Christopher described two tasks in which he displayed his metacognition.
The first was a story of his metacognition during a writing task. The class was led through the
process of writing a short story. Christopher shared the editing and revising of his work.
Afterwards, I talked about things that I thought had gone well with the steps that I had
done and some of the things that I thought maybe that we stumbled over, or I gave too
much time for or didn't explain enough, or something I felt I could change for the next
time.

78

Christopher’s metacognition was a reflection after, not during, the process of writing. Another
example he shared was also an exit reflection with a drama class.
We were looking at a piece of a drama, a script that I wanted them to read. It was a
contemporary fiction script, and I wanted to read it because it was a different text style
than the short story or prose that we had been doing. So, I had them read this script, and
they were just flummoxed by it. It just was totally outside of their thinking. It bombed!
He described how the students struggled with it and how eventually the reading had to be cut
short. Then he engaged the class in a conversation that started with Christopher voicing that he
needed to rethink how he would present this to his students differently if they were to do this
again, or if he should even try to do this again with other students. He recalled, “We left it! We
just abandoned it, and I said to the class, “That's okay!” He expressed to the students that it was
okay to leave a reading, and that experimenting to see if something works or does not work is a
part of the reading process. He made the connection between this process in drama to the
process of reading a book. “I don't make them commit to the book right away. I tell them to
start reading it first for a bit and then decide if it is a good fit. If it is not a good fit, put it aside
and say that this one isn't for me.” Christopher was making his thinking around preference real
and nonjudgmental. He was modelling the hidden process of why one might stop reading and let
it go without adverse consequences. He was instilling positive reading behaviours around reader
identity.
Daniella. Daniella shared how displaying her metacognition had always been her
practice; however, she reflected on how more recently she has been more intentional about her
metacognition. She now had a clear purpose for sharing her metacognition and a precise routine
that included annotation.

79

I [share my thinking] all the time, but if I'm going to be intentional about it, I use the
Elmo projection device. We are finding, that the kids are weak at finding main ideas and
connecting evidence to the main idea within our school. To support finding the main
idea, we have been teaching them to annotate while reading. They are terrible at
annotating. There is much metacognition around the annotation. Our students lack that
metacognition sureness. Therefore, I am on the Elmo and reading aloud and depending
on the focus (it could be vocabulary that we're talking about, or it could be writing
technique or why did the author put a dash here), I am demonstrating my metacognition
around our chosen purpose. I am modelling by saying “I know this!” “I wonder why they
repeated this word so much?” “It must be really important because . . .!” I am modelling
that metacognition while I am reading, but I must have a purpose for the modelling.
In this story Daniella displayed her thinking through annotating while she was reading. This
method demystified the process of making connections while reading for her students.
Question Six
Think of a time when a student displayed a misunderstanding. What happened? Tell me
the story of this memory.
Addison. Addison recalled a story around a social studies text. She recalled this story
because she noticed that the same misunderstanding was happening year after year. She
described that within the textbook, there was a spread of pages that described short biographies
of European explorers who have come to North America. She described the misunderstanding.
Regarding one of the explorers, the passage says, “He first went to sea when he was 12
years old.” The kids were doing an activity; they were writing true/false questions about

80

this information and were going to exchange their questions. One of the students
exclaimed out loud that this explorer was the first to go to sea. And I said,
“How do you know he was the first?” The student responded with, “Well, it says!” and I
said, “Is that what it says, though?” Every year I've run into this problem where some
kids see first, he first went to sea, and they interpret this as he was the first to go to sea.
He was the first. We then discuss grammar. I knew there were other kids in the class
that had made the same mistakes because I'd seen them write the statement: He was the
first to go to sea! And I have to guide them to see that that is not what the passage is
saying.
Addison described this scenario as an excellent chance to stop and look more closely at how
writers write. She asked students, “What is this saying?” She recalled that she often polled her
class.
Who thinks this guy was the first to go to sea? Then students put their hands up. Then I
said, “Who thinks that he went to see for the first time when he was 12?” When I poll the
class, I can see that a bunch of them got the misunderstanding. This example was a good
chance for us to take a look at how language can be misunderstood while reading. We
stopped to look at the text, we could now ask . . . “What would it have said if he was the
first?” “How would that have been worded differently?”
Addison’s story is an example of how she was able to hear a misunderstanding and then guide
the students to correct their misunderstanding by looking more deeply at how words are used to
create meaning. The students were able to do this critical thinking around sentence structures
and meaning making.

81

Bradan. Bradan’s recollection of students’ misunderstandings were also centred within
social studies. He thought that his students did not necessarily have a great concept of time or
historical timelines. His story of misunderstandings was focused on a student who could not
make a connection with the historical timeline of Ancient Rome. They were talking about the
military or army, and a student mentioned that the soldiers’ use of guns. He explained that they
then had to talk about it:
Bradan: “Well, would the soldiers of Ancient Rome have guns? Do they have guns yet in
the time of Ancient Rome?”
Student: “I don't know!”
Bradan: “What do you know?”
Student: “Well, guns were invented about 400 years ago.”
Bradan: “Well, we are in Ancient Rome, which was 2000 years ago, so would they have
had guns?”
Student: “Well, no, they wouldn't have those?”
Bradan: “Okay, so what would they have had to use to defend and attack?”
Bradan’s example displayed a probing that engaged the student in thinking more deeply.
Bradan described that he was not in the practice of giving students answers. Instead of giving
them the answers, their conversations led them to a different understanding. He guided them
through their mistake to the proper timeline. He then asked, “Does this make sense?” Bradan
also recalled that these clarifying conversations also happened between the students. He spoke
to how his role had become that of a listener, facilitator, or one who monitored. He recalled,
“Usually, a conversation like this reveals a logical reason why they have made the mistake.”

82

Christopher. Christopher had difficulty remembering a specific example of a student
misunderstanding. He thought in general that it happened frequently, when students
misunderstood what they had read. He recalled that they usually ended up having a
conversation.
I try to lead them a little bit without telling them. I try to engage by asking questions to
get them to think about the details they are given and are the details in the right order.
This sometimes helps, and sometimes they can't see the connections: the cause and effect.
I generally try to lead them down some of those paths to get to the point where they can
see what the connections are. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. When it doesn't
connect, then that conversation takes longer and longer. For some weak students, these
conversations are a stretch, so sometimes, I have to point out the signposts within the
text.
Christopher understood that some of his students needed scaffolding; therefore, he had to model
the thinking for them during their conversations.
Daniella. Daniella jumped right into her memory of a student misunderstanding. As she
was reflecting, she was intrigued by the misunderstanding being rooted within the generational
differences of the classroom.
We were reading the “Superman Story” from Reading Apprenticeship. The author, who
is from the United States, uses the word Indian. So, we were going through the story as a
whole class, and then we were just discussing our confusion, and a student asked, “What
do you mean Indian Reservation? I thought the character was from India!” He was not
the only one thinking this way. They were so confused about what an Indian meant in
this story. I was having a moment of awe because I saw this as a super cool generational

83

difference. I was just talking like the students knew Indian meant Indigenous. They
were adorable and respectful. One student broke up laughing when they realized the kids
were thinking a person from India, and I was thinking Indigenous. So, I spoke to how
proud I was that we were amid this generational, cultural difference. Our kids could not
see racism because they made an association with India instead of the racist connection
within the US culture of the word Indian. It was kind of cool for us to all do that
together!
Daniella’s reflection demonstrated the safety in which she and her students shared their thinking.
There were moments of humour, light-heartedness, and a sense of a safe learning environment
within her story.
Question Seven
Imagine that you and your students were having a perfect learning scenario. Tell me
what that looks like and feels like for you.
Addison. Addison laughed when responding to this question, because she thought she
was blessed to have had a class where they continually had perfect learning scenarios.
I have a class this year that's unlike any class I have had before. I feel like, or I wonder if
some of these successes this year can be credited to Reading Apprenticeship or if it is just
this set of students? I think it's a combination!
She then went on to describe her ideal, perfect learning scenario which started with her listening.
The students are asking each other questions and helping each other figure things out.
They are working together. They are wondering, and they are making more connections
to what we're doing. The perfect learning scenario would have the students asking

84

questions that deepen our learning. The students are experiencing Ah-Ha moments that
lead them to wonder other things.
She regarded her role as being a facilitator and guider of learning. Her reflection then shifted,
speaking not of her role during the process of learning, but her ideal role during an assessment.
She lamented at having to place a mark on the product at the end of a task. She asked why it was
not enough that the students were excited about having learned something new. “The perfect
learning scenario would be when you're feeling like they, the students, know they've learned.
You're not telling them. The perfect learning experience has the students saying, I learned . . .
and now I know . . . or and now I wonder . . .” Addison’s perfect learning scenario reflected the
notion of complete release of learning to the students.
Bradan. Bradan jumped into reflecting on the perfect learning scenario and described
“the class as tied into a topic and passionate about it. They just want to learn more.” He
continued,
A perfect learning instance for me would be that they all just want to go deeper into it. It
is more than just getting the task done! The students are the ones doing, and our
conversation is, “What did you learn?” and “Why was that important to you?” That
would be the perfect learning experience for me. The students are deep in their own
inquiry, and they are diving deeper independently: how, why, what do you mean by that?
They are applying what they know and questioning what they know about the discipline.
Bradan’s reflection was a perfect example of how the metacognitive funnel could spiral the
students deeper into thinking about how their reading was related to the disciplinary aspects of
the subject.

85

Christopher. Christopher’s perfect learning scenario had engaged students that were in
discussion with each other.
It's not silent! My perfect learning scenario would never be quiet. They are actively
looking to each other to get ideas and feedback and share things. They build off of each
other. And I'm actively poking into each of those conversations, and I am drawn into
whatever they are mulling over and contributing. I would see debating sometimes and
arguing, and I'm moving around lots and just being engaged with that. That, to me, is
much learning, even though we don't necessarily have a product. For me, it is the
messing around. I like the messing around part, the experimenting part. Not necessarily
the finished part!
Christopher continued to describe the ideal learning scenario as losing the sense of time.
The buzzer goes, and your reaction is where did the time go? That's what the perfect
learning scenario feels like. All of the class gets into that flow, and the time has flown
by. It is not crawling, it's not painful! It is engaging! That is the best!
Daniella. Daniella described her perfect learning scenario as a cellphone free zone, a
zone where the students are all engaged and interested. She dreamt of a scenario where her
students' social, emotional lives were perfect, and life was good for all her learners. She said that
this would set the classroom up for excellent learning.
The students would be learning from each other and making connections and asking
questions. There would be contagious curiosity, and they would add to each other's
comments and build off each other's ideas. It's all about engagement! And for me, it feels
super amazing. I get so excited about this because it does happen sometimes!

86

She recalled that when this buzz was happening in her classroom, she needed to be ultra-aware
that she did not lose focus and that all continued to engage.
Each participant described a version of the ideal “curriculum-as-lived” (Aoki, 1993), and
placed themselves alongside the students as they were “working at the very smelting process”
(Clandinin & Connelly, 1992, p. 378) of building new knowledge.
Question Eight
Think of a time you were demonstrating a debugging strategy. Tell me the story of how
that came about and how it unfolded.
Addison. Addison was not sure of the language within this question. She questioned
whether she knew what was meant by “debugging strategy.” After probing a little more into her
thinking, she realized that she had used debugging strategies when she was listening to students.
“I am listening, and I'll hear the students say something that is not correct. However, I
understand why they're thinking this way, so then that's when I will pull the group together to
tackle the misconceptions.” The more she reflected, the more she realized, “I was just thinking
of some of the clarifying that we've already talked about in social studies. Those were my
thoughts, when I was reading debugging.” Addison admitted that this was an aspect of
metacognition that she needed to know more deeply. She spoke of wanting to return for more
RA training to help deepen her understanding and her daily practices. She reflected on her
colleagues, who had also taken RA training.
When we have been having our Readers Apprenticeship meetings with the people on
staff, we have been going back into the textbook and looking at what strategies we have
used and then we revisit them to make sure that we're [effectively] using the strategies to
best benefit our students.

87

Addison’s willingness to express her vulnerability in not yet connecting language around
practice with her current practice was an exceptional example of herself spiralling down the
metacognitive funnel to better her personal practical knowledge.
Bradan. Bradan pictured when the class was deconstructing a problem. He described
that as a class they were going back, step by step through a problem, so that the students were
getting a better understanding of the problem.
That's the strategy I use a lot right now in math for retry. My class is not the happiest
with the order of operations with fractions. So, we do a lot of deconstructing the
problem. We go over all the operations that we have to know how to do to tackle the
problem. And then I ask them to go back and look at where they went wrong in the
problem. And then, the students have to go back to the list and pick what they forgot.
When they identify where they went wrong, then we go through the entire problem
together.
Bradan described an intensive thinking process that the students engaged in. He spoke to the
importance of the students identifying their mistakes and identifying why they made their
mistakes.
Christopher. Christopher made an immediate connection with debugging as a computer
term. Although he did not recall the term from his Reading Apprenticeship training, he made a
quick connection to it being a “fix-it strategy.”
That makes sense; I mean debugging in a computer sense is going through line by line
and figuring out where it's not working right. I guess the story of me abandoning
something is a kind of debugging thinking. It is identifying something that isn't working.

88

Then identifying how the something is not working. I don't think I have specific
strategies. I will have to look at that again.
Christopher, like Addison, demonstrated a willingness to express his vulnerability in not yet
connecting language around practice with his then-current practice. This again demonstrated an
exceptional example of the participant spiralling down the metacognitive funnel to better his
personal practical knowledge.
Daniella. Daniella did not know these terms.
Question Nine
How long have you been implementing metacognition into your classroom routines?
Addison. Addison said that she had intentionally implemented metacognition in her
classroom routines since September of that current school year (approximately six months). She
acknowledged that she had used some of the routines in the past, but not in the same way or with
the same intentions. Within the six months of that current school year, she spoke to “really
getting students to get to their thinking behind what they're doing.” She reflected on her early
comment within the interview, saying that she had had a fantastic year, and she contemplated the
impact of her RA training on her intentional learning goals.
I do think it is a combination of the composition of the students and my intentions, but I
know this year I've gone into everything that I'm doing with a different way of thinking –
after the reading apprenticeship training. It's amazing! If you go into the training ready
to transform your thinking, you really will. It's incredible what it does for your teaching
practice.
Bradan. Bradan reflected that he had been intentionally applying metacognitive
strategies in his classroom for four or five years. “My first years were more getting the routines

89

down. Honestly, my first attempts of metacognition that were intentional, were more exit slips.
Now I am hoping metacognitive conversations are more natural.”
Christopher. Christopher’s recollections had him using metacognition with less
awareness early in his career. He recalled metacognition as a “part of the ELA curriculum, the
older one because we are now working on a new curriculum, which I've been a part of as well.
In the new curriculum, it includes metacognition a lot.” Christopher had been asking students to
reflect his entire career. He remembered asking questions such as, “What did you think about
this?” “How did it work?” “What would we do differently?” His reflection on how the RA
training impacted his teaching, led him to a deeper connection to artistic intent. Since doing the
RA training a few years back, his intentions with the posing questions had an artist sentiment
because students would be reflecting about their art-making: “What would you do differently if
you were to make this again?” and “What would be some things you would try differently next
time?”
Daniella. Daniella spoke of the comradery around her metacognitive practice. Her
reflections were around talking about metacognitive practices with a colleague, and she talked
about how her practice shifted after taking the RA training in the summer of 2019. She spoke to
how much more intentional she was, because metacognition became the centre of each lesson
she planned. “I am a lot more intentional about it now that I have taken the course.”
All four participants spoke to the impact that the specific metacognitive training (RA)
had on their personal practical knowledge.
Question Ten
What are the aspects of implementing metacognition into the classroom that you believe
benefit yourself and your students?

90

Addison. Addison believed that the discussions that she had with her students were the
most beneficial. She recalled having had more insightful conversations the year after her RA
training. She observed that she heard more ideas and that the students were then experiencing
more perspectives. “I just feel like they're able to hear so many more ideas and perspectives than
they would if they just stayed in their head all the time.” She also spoke about the power of
making a mistake and having created a safe place that accepted mistakes.
For example, sometimes, what I will do with my “know-it-all” kid, who never has any
confusion, I will ask them . . . Where might somebody get confused? It has been an
excellent way for them to see that reading requires a lot of thinking. That if you don't
know something, you can identify where exactly it is that breakdown is happening. I
believe that working with multiple people and seeing the value in multiple perspectives is
important. I know some kids like to work by themselves; they don't want to have a
partner. However, they do not reject the partner or push back when told to work with a
partner. My students have accepted that it's just part of how they learn.
She reflected on the staff in her school who had not taken the RA training and she
lamented for the students who might not be actively engaged by their teacher in the same way.
She reflected, “We all need training in RA so that we can keep these strategies strong within our
students.” Her reflection indicated the need for continual practice of metacognitive strategies for
them to become a daily part of students’ lives.
Bradan. Bradan spoke to the aspect of how metacognitive strategies had slowed the
students down. He believed this made space in the classroom for more impact. “It slows the
whole process down, which I think is a benefit in that you can see more where students are at. I
think metacognition leads to better conversations with your students.” He spoke of the built-in

91

routines that made room for students to talk to someone else, be it a pair-share, group-share, or
class-share, and how this benefited the students’ solidification of knowing. He reflected from the
teacher's perspective, identifying how the metacognitive strategies had made him more
intentional. He spoke to how metacognition validated the process of learning because the
teacher makes space for the students to think through the process, and the students know that
they are not alone in their thinking process.
Christopher. Christopher believed that the process of asking the questions was what
benefited his students most, reflecting on what was working for him and what was not. He
shared with the students this process and focused them to thinking about that. He reflected,
I'm a hands-on type of person; I like to deal with the DIY thing. I think that's always
something that I think about a little bit in the background: How would I do this
differently the next time I do this? I go through the thinking process to get different
tools, or I need to learn a technique or look at this idea up to get a deeper connection. I
think the same is true in the classroom. It's crucial for the students to think about this for
themselves: How would I read differently next time? How would I write differently?
My job is trying to get them to just think about that a bit more often.
Christopher’s reflection included his school division. “We the staff are starting to make
metacognition a part of our conversation more and more. Consequently, I think students think
about that more and more.” Christopher also reflected on how the students were used to the
metacognitive questions and how they were very willing to engage in the metacognitive
conversations. “I've noticed that they're more willing to put a little more detail on what they
would do differently as we've talked more about it. The students who are well aware of
themselves, answer those questions well. The ones that are very superficial anyway or low level,

92

they don't know how to answer those questions because they're not aware themselves.” This
point upheld the need to keep practising metacognitive strategies so that all students can benefit.
Daniella. Daniella believed that metacognition moved the students away from the
memorizing action and into more critical thinking. She believed that the students would
continue to use these metacognitive strategies instead of forgetting what they remembered.
“Their learning is higher in the taxonomy. I think that it becomes more authentic for the kids.”
She saw metacognitive strategies building self-esteem within individuals. The students knew
that learning was not a fixed mindset. She spoke of students learning that everybody had an
answer, as opposed to just a couple of people who had an answer. She reflected that her students
had learned that it was important to take the time to listen to each person’s answer. She truly
believed that her students were engaged more in learning. Daniella spoke of the benefits for
herself and her planning.
I'm getting more from the students because I'm moving away from that traditional content
piece and more into the process of learning. My professional reading has helped me
make some bridges about the thinking process: critical thinking, higher level thinking,
reading and writing. I see the value of setting up the students and then releasing them
right into the metacognitive funnel.
She reflected that she was still early in the mental stage of implementing metacognition, and she
looked forward to seeing how the students would continue to benefit from her use of
metacognitive strategies in the classroom. “I like [implementing metacognition], but it's sure
been a lot of hard work for me. And I believe that the other teachers don't really do it. I am so
appreciative of my colleagues who help me through the planning.”

93

Finally, Daniella said that the most beneficial aspect of metacognition within her
classroom was the mastery of building and delivering questions to the students. She saw the
most impact coming from the questions that she was now proposing to the students. She
explained that she thought differently about how to make the questions.
I had an Ah-Ha moment when my colleague helped me make lit-circle questions. We
talked about how the questions need to be more than just about the character in the novel.
She made me get the student to explore becoming a character. “Which one would you be
and why would you choose to be this character?” The students are still talking about the
character traits and all the curricular connections, but now they are thinking at a higher
level.
Daniella’s metacognitive process was impacting her students. She was seeing deeper thinking
from them and more insightful writing.
All four of the participants revealed a growth pattern within their personal practical
knowledge as they reflected on what was most beneficial to their students when implementing
metacognitive strategies.
Conclusion
The Chapter Four reflections have given a glimpse into the thinking of four Manitoban
teachers as they made curriculum come alive in their students’ learning, using metacognition at
the centre of their classroom. They have demonstrated that their metacognitive awareness
involved recognition of what they and their students know and did not know: controlling their
mental processes, helping the student take on the learning responsibility, being aware of their
learning strategies, evaluating their learning, planning, monitoring and managing their
knowledge (Akman & Alagöz, 2018). The interviews captured the memories that highlighted

94

how metacognitive conversations and strategies are influenced the teachers’ planning, classroom
set up, and daily routines, as well as giving evidence on the teachers’ perceptions of student
success.
Six threads of teacher practice, involving metacognition, can be found within these
stories, helping to increase teachers’ perceptions of student achievement: teachers are readying
students for learning, activating existing schema in students; teachers are more explicit regarding
student learning goals; teachers are checking for understanding as formative assessment; teachers
are asking more impactful questions; teachers are creating equality; teachers are increasing their
awareness and ability to employ gradual release of learning masterfully.
Chapter Summary
Chapter Four captured the research findings through a narrative of interview questions.
Through the findings, the participants expressed how preparing for and implementing
metacognition conversations and strategies had influenced their perspectives of student
achievement. Six threads of teachers’ practices around metacognition emerged.
Chapter Five weaves together the findings within the context of six threads that arose
from the research. These six threads weave a tapestry that revealed how metacognition impacts
teachers’ personal practical knowledge and their perceptions of student achievement.

95

Chapter Five:
Discussion
Chapter Five distinguishes six threads connecting the teachers’ reflections with the three
teacher-focused research themes in the literature review: Teachers’ modelling their thinking
supports students’ understanding; Teacher awareness of reading strategies broadens the reading
experience for students; Teacher understanding of self-regulated learning shapes a metacognitive
space for students. These three themes are twisted within the six threads found within this current
research, enhancing the unique tapestries of how metacognition impacts teachers’ personal
practical knowledge. The conclusion reveals how these threads create a metaphor for the
deliberate teacher practices: a tapestry of deeper understanding within students’ achievements
from the perception of the teachers.
Weaving the Tapestry
Six threads weave a tapestry of how metacognitive strategies and conversations support
deep learning, helping to increase teachers’ perceptions of student achievement. Teachers are
readying students for learning which activates existing schema in students. Teachers are more
explicit regarding student learning goals. Teachers are checking for understanding as formative
assessment. Teachers are asking more impactful questions. Teachers are creating equality.
Teachers are increasing their awareness and ability to employ gradual release of learning.
First Thread:
Teachers are readying students for learning by activating existing schema.
The participants’ reflection revealed their perspective that the importance of readiness to
learn had a direct correlation to student achievement. They each spoke of how they helped to
develop their students’ mental processes or cognitive dimension through problem-solving

96

strategies (Schoenbach et al., 2012). They all spoke of knowing who their disengaged or
reluctant and engaged or eager students were, which helped them to recognize and regulate their
thinking in real time (Hughes, 2017). Their reflections unveiled students’ refining individual
schema (Kallio et al., 2017). Within their reflections, the participants identified the social
dimension, the “community building in the classroom, including recognizing their resources
brought by each member and developing a safe environment for students to be open about their
reading difficulties” (Schoenbach et al., 2012, p.24). Moreover, each teacher’s reflection
revealed the need to make connections personally and to help scaffold the readiness to learn, in
order to ensure that students were engaging their existing schema and sharing what they knew.
A connection must be noted to the personal and knowledge-building dimensions within Reading
Apprenticeship training as working to benefit students.
Addison voiced her growth in understanding procedural and conditional knowledge. She
spoke of knowing the KWL (Know, Want to know, and Learn) strategy for years, but she had not
fully employed it until the year after her RA training. She also distinguished that she had a more
profound understanding of how she would be using it to benefit the students: “I see why this
activation matters and how I can productively use this to benefit students.” Addison’s
metacognitive reflections around the importance of activation, and specifically her more in-depth
understanding of the metacognitive process, improved the engagement of her students with the
KWL strategy. She planned, monitored, and managed her thinking around the use of the
activation for the students’ benefit. This reflection revealed Addison’s understanding that
activating students’ existing schema was needed to inform her students’ metacognition better.
All participants displayed their knowledge of cognition through their use of activating the
existing schema of their students. They displayed their ability to support regulation of cognition

97

when they scaffolded time for individual thinking. They facilitated an increased knowledge
building through the metacognitive conversations and pairing, and small-group sharing of ideas.
Their activation routines accommodated fixups of misunderstandings and, therefore, they saw
better success in writing after their lessons.
These reflections around the importance of activation were echoed by all participants,
which displayed their willingness to apply metacognitive strategies to activate and better prepare
students’ readiness to learn because they, the teachers, understood the importance of having
knowledge about cognition and also modelling the regulation of cognition so to help student
achievement.
These reflections demonstrate how the first thread (Teachers are readying student for
learning by activating existing schema) has been influenced by teacher understanding of selfregulated learning, which shapes the metacognitive space for students.
Second Thread:
Teachers are more explicit regarding student learning goals.
Interestingly, the reflections around sharing one's metacognition with the class revealed
the participants’ awareness of how much they were thinking and how quickly they were thinking
(comprehension monitoring and evaluation), which created Ah-Ha moments that led them to
understand why sharing metacognition helped to make explicit learning goals. The participants’
reflections demonstrated a connection to Abromitis’ (1994) findings that metacognition
encourages “flexible and adaptive thinking” and “modification,” (p. 5) which in these reflections
helped teachers to define explicit learning goals. These reflections bring to light the idea that the
curriculum-as-plan (Aoki, 1993), and a teacher's understanding of what makes success, might
need a shift or change in the next moments of curriculum-as-lived (Aoki, 1993). Many of the

98

shared reflections revealed a learning and recognition to increase the practice of metacognition in
order to expand on teachers' personal practical knowledge while teaching students to read
challenging texts in their classrooms.
Daniella’s reflection of how her inferencing skills were fast and automatic reflects
Karpicke and Grimaldi’s (2013) research around retrieval-practice. She spoke to how a majority
of her students had missed the tone of an article and, had they not taken the time to share their
thinking before their independent work, the students would have missed an essential aspect of
the article, causing them possible confusion and frustration. However, she was able to shift and
be explicit about the students' learning goals because she accommodated and planned for shared
metacognition and group sharing of ideas. Daniella's shift in explicit learning goals came from
her ability to hear misconceptions, which then directed the next steps. Scaffolding her students,
in order to focus on the author's tone, deepened their understanding and their writing.
Bradan revealed how overwhelming tracking metacognition could be as he reflected on
one of his first attempts of sharing his metacognition. This exercise of metacognition led him to
a more concise sharing of one aspect of his metacognition, as noted by Ozturk (2017), who spoke
of highlighting awareness of cognitive activities and utilizing them most effectively. Bradan
then gave the students multiple experiences for practicing that one metacognitive aspect of
questioning when reading. He had an awareness of how his metacognition was “knowledgeintensive” (Kallio et al., 2015, p. 102); therefore, he applied the dimensions taught during his
Reading Apprenticeship training, in order to more powerfully increase the students' capacity. He
adjusted the initial goals, and became more explicit and concise, which gave his students more
opportunities for success in tracking their thinking.

99

These reflections demonstrate how the second thread (Teachers are more explicit
regarding student learning goals) is influenced by two themes as highlighted in the literature:
teachers modelling their thinking to support students’ understanding, and teachers understanding
the self-regulated learning that shapes the metacognitive space for students.
Third Thread:
Teachers are checking for understanding as a formative assessment.
Each reflection demonstrated a form of metacognitive conversation in real time, which
spiralled the students’ thinking deeper into subject-specific criteria, connecting their existing
schema to new knowledge and thereby deepening their understanding and increasing their
success right then (Hughes, 2017; Bing-You et al., 2017; Akman and Alagöz, 2018). Utilizing
metacognitive conversation in the classroom makes implicit thoughts explicit (Jones, 2007), and
there is “a focus on reading and talking about reading during classroom lessons (which) gives
teachers the opportunity to mentor students in the reasoning and problem-solving skills they need
to master” (Schoenbach et al., 2012 p. 24). More specifically, participants shared that
metacognitive conversations enable teachers to hear more student ideas and more student
perspectives, and they hear misconceptions early so that metacognitive conversations can guide
students to fix their misunderstanding.
Addison observed, “I just feel like they can hear so many more ideas and perspectives
than they would if they stayed in their head all the time,” empowering them to deepen their
understanding. Bradan reflected that including metacognition “slows the whole process down,”
which he saw as a benefit because “you can see more where students are.” Christopher recalled,
“I go through the thinking process to get different tools, or I need to learn a technique or look at
this idea up to get a deeper connection. I think the same is true in the classroom. The students

100

must think about this for themselves. My job is trying to get them to just think about that a bit
more often.” Daniella's story of a misconception highlighted the importance of checking for
understanding in order to deepen learning. Her story revealed how the personal and social
dimensions worked together to support context and knowledge-building. Several students had a
misunderstanding around the word Indian within a short story they were reading. She stated,
“They were so confused about what an Indian meant in this story.” A safe exchange ensued,
with moments of humour and light-heartedness that facilitated a deeper understanding of the
author's intent and specific language use. This formative assessment helped to engineer a
respectful conversation around word choice, meaning, and context. Had this exchange of ideas
not occurred, many students would have written a response completely missing the central theme
of the story. Danielle's ability to use formative assessment created moments of listening and
sharing, which solidified meaning for many students.
These reflections demonstrate how the third thread (Teachers are checking for
understanding as a formative assessment) is interwoven with the teacher awareness of reading
strategies broadening the reading experiences for students, and with the teacher understanding of
self-regulated learning shaping the metacognitive process for students.
Fourth Thread:
Teachers are asking more impactful questions.
Each participant designed learning moments that wove powerful text and students’
thinking by posing questions and creating metacognitive conversations. Conversations focused
on how or why students think, probing the students to discover new connections. The teachers
were not only modelling the metacognitive process, but they were also doing as Jones (2007)
advocated, making real-time connections, encouraging students to consider how or why they

101

accept or reject ideas. This shift in teaching stance has moved the teacher to a facilitator of
discovery. Addison and Bradan asked their students to reflect during metacognitive
conversations, encouraging the students to check themselves for understanding. Daniella spent
significant time improving her questions in order to activate deeper thinking by her students.
Her questions helped to shift her students' stance, placing them central in the inquiry at the
inception of discovering how or why they would make choices as they engaged in literature
elements. Christopher spoke of the messiness of discovering, and how creative it feels when
students can be in the moment, making choices that deepen their understanding.
This thread of impactful questions comes from an increased awareness of the importance
of metacognition within the personal practical knowledge of each research participant. Each
participant believed that heightening students' metacognitive awareness increased the students'
achievement. This reflects the assertion of Akman and Alagöz (2018) that building knowledge
within students requires activating both the cognitive regulation skills and the cognitive
knowledge.
The participants reflected on how they modelled metacognitive conversations with
probing questions, empowering their students to participate more deeply in their knowledge
building. The participants spoke of their role shifting away from the giver of knowledge to the
facilitator of student engagement. This shift was not created by happenstance, but with intention.
Each participant spoke of engaging the students to activate their existing schema, not just
determining what students already knew, but ensuring that students were aware of why they were
thinking in that particular way.

102

These reflections demonstrate how the fourth thread (Teachers are asking more impactful
questions) has been influenced by teacher understanding of how self-regulated learning shapes
the metacognitive space for students.
Fifth Thread:
Teachers are creating equality.
The RA training actively engages teachers in understanding the importance of the social
domain. This understanding acknowledges Charles McMurry’s powerful declaration that “the
teacher is working at the very smelting process, the point of difficulty where new,
uncomprehending knowledge meets this tumult of the child’s mind” (Clandinin, & Connelly,
1992, p. 378), which when matched with metacognitive conversations and strategies provides
equality for students. The social dimension entailed the research participants creating safe places
for learners to share their idea production, “integrating the relationship between literacy and
power” and developing voice around a text (Schoenbach et al., 2012, p. 25). By modelling and
employing metacognitive conversations and encouraging tracking of student metacognition, each
participant created equality in the classroom. Each participant spoke of a safe place where
students could critically and creatively think, problem solve, make mistakes, and speak through
their thinking free of ridicule (Aktag et al., 2017). Each participant spoke of the routines that
built student confidence, allowing everyone to express their voice and building a learning
community that heard multiple perspectives. Each participant spoke of class conversations’
importance, which ensured that each voice was heard, making procedures and norms that
supported individual thinking and small- and large-group thinking. The common thread between
the participants was that they each believed in building a positive social community. This
reflects Borko et al. (2000) and Richmond et al.’s (2017) premise that learning is an active and

103

social construction. Students have more achievement in shared experiences. Active learning is
more powerful than direct instruction.
Bradan's reflection spoke of the diverse needs that were impacted when purposefully
building routines around the social dimension. He believed that his students needed this social
learning. He had two separate and different class situations that required the scaffolding of how
to think and share thinking: the first being a chatty few who monopolized conversations, and the
second being an extremely quiet group. In both scenarios, he used his routines of think, pair,
share to create equitable learning moments for all. In the one year, this routine helped to quiet
some voices and share learning through equitable distribution of voice. In the previous year, this
routine built confidence in a group of extremely quiet thinkers.
Daniella spoke of the tracking routines that supported individual and group thinking,
which led to better student writing responses. Her scaffolding of productive activation followed
by individual reading was supported by her modelling of how to track and support meaningful
connections between writers’ intent and student understanding. Students were encouraged to
share thinking through pairs, small-group and large-group conversations. Students made posters
together and then presented their ideas. Students engaged in gallery walks, adding to their
thinking and building a deeper connection between the author’s choice and readers’
understanding, which then supported student writing with evidence of more in-depth
understanding.
These reflections demonstrate how the fifth thread (Teachers creating equality has been
influenced by teachers modelling their thinking), supporting students’ understanding and
teachers’ awareness of reading strategies, broadened the reading experiences for students. Each
research participant used the thread of building a social climate to create equality within the

104

classroom. This required each participant to have the will and confidence to release control,
facilitating their students to create their new knowledge through guided, purposeful practices.
Sixth Thread:
Teachers are increasing their awareness and ability to employ gradual release of learning.
The four participants in this study believed that by scaffolding metacognitive strategies,
they were building the skills needed for students to gain control over their learning, releasing
them to engage fully in the act of shifting between their knowledge about cognition and their
ability to regulate their cognition. This goal of releasing the students was evident in all of the
participants’ perfect learning scenarios. The participants had the goal of creating a space where
their students could engage in conversations, creating inquiry that was supported by a social
culture within their classroom. These active learning lessons reflect the research by Richmond et
al. (2017), which found that active learning instruction produces higher academic performance
than lessons that use direct instruction as formal pedagogy. Schoenbach et al. (2012) expressed
how this all starts with the teachers modelling their metacognition to demystify the thinking
process for students. Then, following modelling comes gradual release to the student with social
supports, echoing Borko et al.’s (2000) research that spoke to teachers releasing control to
students. Gradual release implies that the teachers build reading and thinking routines that
employ the students to engage their thinking with the teacher and other peers, with the eventual
goal of having students lead learning scenarios. This reflects the notions of Fletcher’s (2018)
research on “help seeking” strategies within the classroom. The participants spoke of students
becoming more independent and the feeling created within the classroom when gradual release
was successful.

105

Christopher spoke to the loss of time when the learning space was full of engaged and
responsive learners. He reflected on how he felt a little out of his comfort zone, releasing control
and having different stations, with students getting up and moving around the classroom.
However, he concluded with his delight in how engaged the students were. Bradan recalled that
his routines of clarifying conversations were happening without him: students probed each other
deeper into their inquiries. Addison spoke to the release of the learning process, reflecting on
when the students take total control of their learning and claim their learning. Daniella's
metacognition around her teaching practice shifted. “My professional reading has helped me
build bridges within the thinking process: critical thinking, higher-level thinking, reading and
writing. I see the value of setting up the students and then releasing them right into the
metacognitive funnel.” All of these reflections echo the research of Borko et al. (2000) that the
teachers they were following “talked about ‘giving up control’ to students as they organized the
learning environments in their classrooms to enable students to take a more active role in their
own learning” (p. 296). These experiential learning scenarios highlighted how the participants'
use of metacognitive strategies and metacognitive conversations within their classrooms led their
students to increased control over their learning.
These reflections demonstrated how the sixth thread (Teachers are increasing their
awareness and ability to employ gradual release of learning) is influenced by the teachers’
understanding of how self-regulated learning shapes the metacognitive space for students.
Conclusion
Chapter Five connected the reflections of the four participants with the research findings,
supporting the use of metacognitive conversation and strategies to increase the teachers’
perspective of student achievement. The participants’ reflections highlighted six threads that

106

wove a tapestry of how employing metacognitive strategies and metacognitive conversations in
the classroom helped to increase their perceptions of student achievement. These six threads
were as follows: teachers are readying students for learning, activating existing schema in
students; teachers are more explicit regarding student learning goals; teachers are checking for
understanding as formative assessment; teachers are asking more impactful questions; teachers
are creating equality; and teachers are increasing their awareness and ability to employ gradual
release of learning.
These woven threads created four unique tapestries capturing the impact that
metacognitive conversations and metacognitive strategies had within each of the participant’s
classrooms. These tapestries were woven with diligence and care by teachers who value
students’ voices, student independence and, ultimately, student achievement. The woven images
are unique and, upon reflection, upon taking the time to step back and look at the material
created, honour the work and impact that metacognitive strategies and conversations had within
each participant’s classroom.
Each of these tapestries itself had two sides: the participant’s perspective and my
perspective. As with any beautiful tapestry, one can flip the fabric over and appreciate the weave
and how the weave shifts when looking at its underside. Educators continuously try to improve
student achievement; this is a common goal. Teachers must continually collaborate and take the
time to examine both sides of the tapestry that metacognitive practices make in order to increase
their personal practical knowledge of metacognitive strategies and conversations.
Chapter Summary
Chapter Five highlighted how the three main ways teachers influence their students’
metacognition, as themes found in the literature review, are twisted throughout the six threads

107

found in the current research. Chapter Five highlighted key points from each participant within
each thread, creating unique tapestries of how metacognitive conversations and strategies
influence teachers’ perceptions of student achievement.
Chapter Six reveals the conclusion which supports the impact that metacognitive
conversation and metacognitive strategies have on teachers' perspectives of student achievement.
Also, Chapter Six gives recommendations for future practice and further research.

108

Chapter Six:
Conclusions and Recommendations
Chapter Six restates the purpose and research questions posed at the start of this
investigation. Following the questions, conclusions are made by answering the research
questions. Recommendations for future practice and further research are then stated, based on
the findings as they lead us to seek ways of improving teachers’ personal practical knowledge.
Restating the Purpose and Questions
This study explored how the teacher’s understanding of metacognition influences the
development of metacognitive strategies and the metacognitive conversation within the
classroom. The study explored whether a teacher’s understanding of metacognitive strategies
and conversations affected the teacher’s perspective of knowledge building in students. This
elicited the main research question:
•

How does a teacher’s understanding of metacognition influence the development
of metacognitive skills and metacognitive conversations in classroom practices
and routines?

Subsequent questions were as follows:
•

How does this awareness help to influence the teacher’s decision making within
planning, classroom set up, and daily routines?

•

What evidence indicates that the teacher’s understanding of metacognition is
making a positive impact on the teacher’s perception of student learning?

The current research findings reveal the following answers to these questions.

109

Main Research Question
How does a teacher’s understanding of metacognition influence the development of
metacognitive skills and metacognitive conversations in classroom practices and routines?
Conclusion one. A teacher’s understanding of metacognition does influence the
development of metacognitive skills and metacognitive conversations in classroom practices and
routines. Each thread within the findings supports evidence that the teacher’s understanding of
metacognition influences the development of metacognitive skills in their practices and routines.
Thread one (teachers were readying students for learning) supports that the participants
understood that both knowledge of cognition and the regulation of cognition include a
connection between the students' personal needs and the social-emotional supports needed to
uphold each individual. This thread highlights that learning is a social construct and that
learning is influenced by experiences that are impacted by how one thinks in daily living.
Thread two (teachers were activating existing schema in students) demonstrates that
teachers understand that in order for students to build new knowledge, the process of learning
involves activating prior knowledge (regulation of cognition). Helping students identify their
existing schema requires metacognitive processes. Individual participants spoke of their
understanding of how the metacognitive activation promoted deeper connections for their
students because misunderstandings or clarifications were made when teachers guided the
students to clarify their thinking.
Thread three (teachers were more explicit regarding student learning goals) highlighted
how modelling, making visible the regulation of cognition through metacognitive strategies,
demystified the complexity of metacognition and helped teachers to slow down and make
explicit goals so that students could practice regulation of cognition with a set purpose.

110

Thread four (teachers were checking for understanding as formative assessment) and
thread five (teachers were asking more impactful questions) suggest that the participants had an
understanding of how the three categories under knowledge of cognition work together to build
new knowledge: declarative knowledge, knowing what is to be learned; procedural knowledge,
knowing how discovery, cooperative learning and problem-solving build knowledge; and
conditional knowledge, knowing the when and why to use learning procedures. The participants
reflected on how the knowledge of cognition was exposed through the use of metacognitive
strategies and conversation, making regulation of knowledge more malleable for fast and
effective feedback, increasing their perceptions of student achievement.
Thread six (teachers were creating equality) demonstrated that the participants were
increasing their awareness and ability to employ gradual release of learning. The participants
expressed how their understanding of metacognition had influenced the development of
metacognitive skills and conversation within their classroom practices and routines, with the goal
of students taking control of their learning.
The following examples are evidence supporting that the teachers' understanding of
metacognition influenced the development of metacognitive skills and metacognitive
conversations in classroom practices and routines.
Addison spoke of doing an activation with more purpose after her RA training. She
analyzed how her past experiences were not as successful, and how much more impactful the
activation was when woven with think, pair, group share metacognitive tracking of students’
voice. Bradan spoke of how, regardless of a class of spirited talkers or extremely quiet students,
he was confident of their abilities while employing metacognitive strategies and routines.
Christopher spoke to how he modelled his reflections, making his thinking visible for his

111

students, and then incorporated a whip-around routine that had become a comfort for his
students. Daniella remarked on how her understanding of metacognition had impacted her
practice through her more in-depth understanding of question making. Each teacher made a shift
in their personal practical knowledge because their metacognition had sparked confidence and
resilience in them to share their metacognition with their students, thereby influencing their
perceptions of student achievement.
Subsequent Question One
How does this awareness help to influence the teacher’s decision making within
planning, classroom set up, and daily routines?
Conclusion two. Yes, the teacher participants’ metacognitive practices influenced their
decision making within planning, classroom set up, and daily routines. Evidence that supports
this conclusion was found within the tapestry of each participant’s reflection.
Participants’ reflections revealed that planning with metacognitive practices took time
and diligence. They each spoke of planning for specific metacognitive goals and also spoke to
how the planning made space for activating student voice with purpose. They spoke of having
goals and being aware of what influenced a change in direction or the desire to remain on course,
building resilience. The participants relayed stories that involved how they had their classrooms
set up to accommodate social interactions better when they were involved in pair- or groupshared activities. Most evident were the daily routines that each participant shared around
creating metacognitive conversations. The participants spoke of the scaffolding of students
tracking their thinking within T-charts, posters, gallery walks, or whip-around. These practices
were supported by think, pair, and share strategies that encouraged students to think individually,
share their thinking in a safe place of a pair-share, and share in a large-group setting.

112

Subsequent Question Two
What evidence indicates that the teacher’s understanding of metacognition was making a
positive impact on the teacher’s perception of student learning?
Conclusion three. The evidence that indicates that the teachers’ understandings of
metacognition made a positive impact on the teachers’ perceptions of students’ success lies
within the stories they told about students reaching the achieved purpose or deeper understanding
around the intended focus. Addison spoke of her perception, after intentionally implementing
metacognitive strategies into her routines, that she believed to have her best class of students.
She also spoke of using strategies with more purpose for the students, setting them up for more
success during an activity. Bradan spoke of using his metacognitive strategies to benefit groups
despite the groups’ apparent differences. He perceived the social aspect of his metacognitive
strategies as benefiting all. Christopher added his perception of the students appreciating the
whip-around routine because they felt it validated them by giving them a voice in their learning.
Daniella spoke of seeing successes as she reflected on reluctant readers reaching their goal, and
she marvelled at how her students’ writing improved, surpassing her expectations of grade-level
writing.
This research found that teachers elicit powerful strategies to improve students’
engagement with the use of metacognitive strategies or conversations, which then led to their
students’ meeting or exceeding the teachers’ perceived ideas of success.
Recommendations
These research findings have been conclusive. Teacher awareness around metacognitive
strategies influenced the participants’ decision making within planning, classroom set up, and
daily routines. Therefore, a teacher’s understanding of metacognition does influence the

113

development of metacognitive skills and metacognitive conversations in classroom practices and
routines. The findings also had indicators that implementing metacognitive practices within a
classroom increases a teacher’s perception of student achievement because these practices make
visible the students’ thinking, therefore making visible the students’ journey to new
understandings.
However, this research had a limited quota sample with four participants selected from a
group of teachers with Reading Apprenticeship (RA) training. This purposive sampling had a
unique perspective because of their training. This RA training created a sampling bias because
these teachers had an insight to understanding the significance of student engagement, and each
had a unique mastery in creating a class climate that promoted connections between prior
knowledge and new knowledge.
The involvement in this study also affected the attitudes that the teachers had toward
student engagement. They voiced how the participation in this research heightened their
reflective practice, which made them more aware of their influence and therefore enhanced their
practices during this research period. Thus, it is thought that the following recommendations for
practice and further research be made.
Recommendations for Practice
Three out of four participants expressed that their personal practical knowledge was
enhanced by the initial RA training and the collaborative efficacy with other staff members,
focusing on improving metacognitive strategies and conversations within the classroom. The
fourth participant expressed that although she was not in a formal group, she believed that
metacognitive practices were known by a majority of staff. This research suggests that

114

collaborative work around improving metacognitive strategies and conversations within the
classroom would greatly benefit teachers’ personal practical knowledge.
Three out of the four participants expressed a desire to retake RA training. Their
reflections indicated that their practices were impacted by the training and then again by being
involved with this research. They expressed that the initial training was good because it created
a shift within their teaching stance. However, they thought that more training would help to
solidify and improve their use of metacognitive strategies and conversations, increasing their
personal practical knowledge.
There was also discussion around highlighting the need to take metacognition awareness
and strategies during the preparation of becoming a teacher within secondary education
institutions. Therefore, it is recommended to build collaborative efficacy around implementing
metacognitive strategies within secondary institutions' courses and within professional
development opportunities in the school divisions of Manitoba. Educational leaders would play
a critical role in putting this recommendation into practice.
Recommendations for Further Research
These qualitative research findings were limited to reflections from participants. A
deeper understanding of teacher awareness around metacognition could be accomplished if
quantitative data from the MAI were used to compare the teachers’ awareness of metacognition
with their reflections on their practices.
However, these research findings identified the positive impact of the metacognitive
strategies and metacognitive conversations within the qualitative reflections of teachers who
revealed their perspective that “students are able to catch up in critical reading skills if provided
with additional, sustained instruction in small, focused instructional groups” (Torgesen et al.,

115

2008, p. 63). Therefore, it could be stated that the results of this study improved teaching
methods, which in terms of the participants’ perspectives improved students’ reading skills and
knowledge building. This study's results have reinforced the fact that metacognitive strategies
and conversations can be successful agents in helping students achieve higher quality standards
from the teachers' perspectives. However, further research is recommended that includes not just
teachers who have taken RA training; more extensive studies are required to seek teachers’
understanding of metacognitive practices.
Further research should also include teachers who have no official training in
metacognitive strategies so that a control group can better identify teacher awareness of
metacognition and the implementation of strategies based on teacher awareness.
This research also was specific to tracking the teachers’ metacognition without the voices
of the students. Further research is needed to elicit metacognition from both the teachers and the
students in order to appreciate the impact that metacognitive strategies and conversations have
on student achievement.
Conclusion
Through each tapestry woven in this research, it is apparent that metacognitive practices
and conversations impact teacher planning, class set-up, and routines, thereby positively
impacting teachers’ personal practical knowledge.
Therefore, the current study’s focus on teacher awareness should open an avenue in the
literature, which has so far been mostly engaged around students’ metacognition as it relates to
their academic performance. Making the teachers’ tapestry of metacognition visible has revealed
the relationship between modelling metacognition and increasing teachers’ perceptions of
student achievement. This upholds that “high quality instruction enables students of all ages to

116

construct domain-specific and domain-general strategies, metacognitive knowledge about
themselves and their cognitive skills, and how to better regulate their cognition” (Schraw, 1998,
p. 123). Therefore, we must promote that high-quality instruction includes metacognitive
strategies and conversations.
The literature review spoke to a need to investigate teacher metacognition. Now the
research findings support the need for more research regarding teachers as experts in
implementing metacognitive strategies and metacognitive conversations within their classrooms,
increasing their personal practical knowledge.
Thesis Summary
This study captured the metacognition of four teachers in Manitoba. Chapter One of the
thesis outlined the critical elements that deepen our understanding of metacognition and its
impacts on learning. Chapter Two was a literature review of teacher metacognition. It outlined
the need for more research on teacher metacognition and supported the need for the current
research. Chapter Three outlined the methodology of the narrative inquiry and why this stance
was so powerful when capturing the inner voices of teachers while they planned, set up their
classrooms and facilitated learning. Chapter Four outlined the findings collected through the
interview process, capturing the memories and reflections around metacognitive conversations
and strategies within each participant’s classroom. Chapter Five took the narrative inquiry
stance and pulled out six threads common between the research and the findings, creating a
tapestry of the teachers’ metacognitive process. An analysis of their reflections revealed that the
participants’ awareness of metacognition impacted their practice and their perception of student
achievement. Chapter Six answered the research questions by analyzing the connections
between each thread within the literature review and the threads found within the current

117

research, which revealed evidence that the teachers’ understanding of metacognition does
influence the development of metacognitive skills in their practices and routines. This analysis
built the recommendation that more research is needed to explore teacher metacognition so that
further explorations for future practice and further research can increase our teachers’ personal
practical knowledge.

118

References
Abromitis, B. (June, 1994). The role of metacognition in reading comprehension: Implications
for instruction. Literacy Research and Reports No. 19.
Akman, Ö., & Alagöz, B. (2018). Relation between metacognitive awareness and participation to
class discussion of university students. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(1),
11-24.
Aktag, I., Semsek, Ö., & Tuzcuoglu, S. (2017). Determination metacognitive awareness of
physical education teachers. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(9), 63-69.
Aoki, T. T. (1993). Legitimating lived curriculum: Towards a curricular landscape of
multiplicity. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 8(3), 255-268.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the
sociology of knowledge. London, England: Penguin Books.
Bing-You, R. G., Blondeau, W., Dreher, G. K., & Irby, D. M. (2017). T2 (teaching & thinking)in-action skills of highly rated medical teachers: How do we help faculty attain that
expertise? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(5), 409-417.
Borko, H., Davinroy, K. H., Bliem, C. L. & Cumbo, K. B. (2000). Exploring and supporting
teacher change: Two third-grade teachers' experiences in a mathematics and literacy staff
development project. Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 273-306.
Borko, H., Mayfield, V., Marion, S., Flexer, R., & Cumbo, K. (1997). Teachers' developing ideas
and practices about mathematics performance assessment: Successes, stumbling blocks,
and implications for professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(3),
259-278. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(96)00024-8

119

Breakspear, S. (2016). Agile implementation for learning: How adapting an agile mindset can
help leaders achieve meaningful progress in student learning. Centre for Strategic
Education, Victoria, Australia. Retrieved from http://simonbreakspear.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/01/Agile-Implementation-for-Learning.pdf
Chou, M. (2017). A task-based language teaching approach to developing metacognitive
strategies for listening comprehension. International Journal of Listening, 31(1), 51-70.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. W. Jackson
(Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 363-401). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Clandinin, D. J. & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative Inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Boss.
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1988). The idea of curriculum. Teachers as
curriculum planners: Narratives of experience. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Craig, C. (1995). Knowledge communities: A way of making sense of how beginning teachers
come to know in their professional knowledge contexts. Curriculum Inquiry, 25(2), 151175. doi:10.2307/1180185
Craig, C. (2012). Similarities among differences: An international sampling of interwoven
themes. Teachers and Teaching, 18(5), 509-511. doi:10.1080/13540602.2012.709727
Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Ballantine
Books.
Fletcher A. (August, 2018). Help seeking: Agentic learners initiating feedback. Educational
Review, 70(4), 389-408.
Forbes, K., & Fisher, L. (2018). The impact of expanding advanced level secondary school
students' awareness and use of metacognitive learning strategies on confidence and

120

proficiency in foreign language speaking skills. Language Learning Journal, 46(2), 173185.
Galbraith, P. (2004). Chaos mini-theme organisational leadership and chaos theory: Let’s be
careful. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(1), 9-28.
doi:10.1108/09578230410517440
Göktürk, E. (n.d.). What is “paradigm”?
Hughes, A. J. (2017). Educational complexity and professional development: Teachers' need for
metacognitive awareness. Journal of Technology Education, 29(1), 25-44.
Jones, D. (2007). Speaking, listening, planning and assessing: The teacher's role in developing
metacognitive awareness. Early Child Development and Care, 177(6), 569-579.
Kallio, H., Virta, K., & Kallio, M. (2018). Modelling the components of metacognitive
awareness. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 7(2), 94-122.
doi:10.17583/ijep.2018.2789
Kallio, H., Virta, K., Kallio, M., Virta, A., Hjardemaal, F. R., & Sandven, J. (2017). The utility
of the metacognitive awareness inventory for teachers among in-service teachers. Journal
of Education and Learning, 6(4), 78-91.
Karpicke, J. D., & Grimaldi, P. J. (2012). Retrieval-based learning: A perspective for enhancing
meaningful learning. Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 401-418.
doi:10.1007/s10648-012-9202-2
Kershner, B., & McQuillan, P. (2016). Complex adaptive schools: Educational leadership and
school change. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 13(1),
4-29.

121

Kim, B. (2001). Social constructivism. Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching and
technology, 1(1), 16th ser. Retrieved February 2, 2017, from
http://cmapsconverted.ihmc.us/rid=1N5QXBJZF-20SG67F32D4/Kim%20Social%20constructivism.pdf
Krauss, S. E. (2005). Research paradigms and meaning making: A primer. The Qualitative
Report, 10(4), 758-770. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol10/iss4/7
Larson, C. B. (2009). Metacognition: New research developments. New York, NY: Nova
Science.
Manitoba Professional Development. (2012). Reading apprenticeship strategic literacy initiative.
Winnipeg, MB: WestEd.
Meijer, J., Veenman, M. J., & van Hout-Wolters, B. M. (2006). Metacognitive activities in textstudying and problem-solving: Development of a taxonomy. Educational Research and
Evaluation, 12(3), 209-237.
Meijer, J., Veenman, M. V. J., & van Hout-Wolters, B. (2012). Multi-domain, multi-method
measures of metacognitive activity: What is all the fuss about metacognition . . .
Indeed? Research Papers in Education, 27(5), 597-627.
McLeod, N. (2015). Reflecting on reflection: Improving teachers' readiness to facilitate
participatory learning with young children. Professional Development in
Education, 41(2), 254-272.
Mitchell, H, (2005). Nehithawak of Reindeer Lake, Canada: Worldview, epistemology and
relationships with the natural world. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 34,
33-43.

122

Moshman, D. (2018). Metacognitive theories revisited. Educational Psychology Review, 30(2),
599-606.
Ozturk, N. (2017a). An analysis of researchers’ self-reported competencies for teaching
metacognition. Educational Studies, 43(3), 247-264.
doi:10.1080/03055698.2016.1273761
Ozturk, N. (2017b). Identifying the nature of metacognition instruction in reading classrooms
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland). Retrieved from
https://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/handle/1903/19386/Ozturk_umd_0117E_17889.pdf?s
equence=1&isAllowed=y
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say
about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.
Rapchak, M. E. (2018). Collaborative learning in an information literacy course: The impact of
online versus face-to-face instruction on social metacognitive awareness. Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 44(3), 383-390. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2018.03.003
Richmond, A. S., Bacca, A. M., Becknell, J. S., & Coyle, R. P. (2017). Teaching metacognition
experientially: A focus on higher versus lower level learning. Teaching of
Psychology, 44(4), 298-305.
Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible: How to promote
engagement, understanding, and independence for all learners. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Prins, F. J., Veenman, M. J., & Elshout, J. J. (2006). The impact of intellectual ability and
metacognition on learning: New support for the threshold of problematicity
theory. Learning and Instruction, 16(4), 374-387.

123

Prytula, M.P. (2012). Teacher Metacognition within the Professional Learning Community.
International Education Studies, 5(4), 112-121.
Remler, D. K., & Ryzin, G. V. (2015). Research methods in practise: Strategies for description
and causation (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Robb, L., Baumann, J. F., Fuhler, C. J., & Kindig, J. (2005). Reading advantage. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
Saenz, G. D., Geraci, L., Miller, T. M., & Tirso, R. (2017). Metacognition in the classroom: The
association between students’ exam predictions and their desired grades. Consciousness
and Cognition: An International Journal, 51, 125-139. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2017.03.002
Schellings, G. L. M., van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., Veenman, M. J., & Meijer, J. (2013).
Assessing metacognitive activities: The in-depth comparison of a task-specific
questionnaire with think-aloud protocols. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 28(3), 963-990.
Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., & Murphy, L. (2012). Reading for understanding: How reading
apprenticeship improves disciplinary learning in secondary and college classrooms. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1),
113-125.
Schraw, G. (2009). A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive
monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 33-45.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994a). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460-475. doi:10.1006/ceps.1994.1033

124

Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994b). Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) scoring
guide. Retrieved from
https://is.muni.cz/el/1421/podzim2017/CJVAEA/um/students_folder/Metacognitive_Awa
reness_Inventory.pdf
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994c). Metacognitive Awareness Inventory. Retrieved from
https://www.une.edu/sites/default/files/metacognitive-awareness-inventory2013.pdf
Schraw, G., & Graham, T. (1997). Helping gifted students develop metacognitive
awareness. Roeper Review, 20(1), 4.
Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology
Review, 7(4), 351.
Sullivan, L. E. (2009). The SAGE glossary of the social and behavioral sciences. London,
England: SAGE.
Torgesen, J., Scammacca, N., Boardman, A., & Roberts, G. (2008). Evidence-based strategies
for reading instruction of older students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 23(2), 63-69.
Van der Stel, M., & Veenman, M. J. (2010). Development of metacognitive skillfulness: A
longitudinal study. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(3), 220-224.
Van der Stel, M., & Veenman, M. J. (2014). Metacognitive skills and intellectual ability of
young adolescents: A longitudinal study from a developmental perspective. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, 29(1), 117-137.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

125

Wahynui, D. (2012). The research design maze: Understanding paradigms, cases, methods and
methodologies. The Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research, 10(1), 68-80.
Yildiz, H., & Akdag, M. (2017). The effect of metacognitive strategies on prospective teachers'
metacognitive awareness and self efficacy belief. Journal of Education and Training
Studies, 5(12), 30-40.
Young, A., & Fry, J.D. (2008). Metacognitive awareness and academic achievement in college
students. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1-10.

126

Appendix A
Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI)
An electronic version will be made of Schraw & Dennison’s (1994b, 1994c) MAI with
the instruction to the research participants to answer the inventory while thinking about
their own methods of learning.
Mark each of the statements below True or False as appropriate.
1. I ask myself periodically if I am meeting my goals.
2. I consider several alternatives to a problem before I answer.
3. I try to use strategies that have worked in the past.
4. I pace myself while learning in order to have enough time.
5. I understand my intellectual strengths and weaknesses.
6. I think about what I really need to learn before I begin a task.
7. I know how well I did once I finish a test.
8. I set specific goals before I begin a task.
9. I slow down when I encounter important information.
10. I know what kind of information is most important to learn.
11. I ask myself if I have considered all options when solving a problem.
12. I am good at organizing information.
13. I consciously focus my attention on important information.
14. I have a specific purpose for each strategy I use.
15. I learn best when I know something about the topic.
16. I know what the teacher expects me to learn.
17. I am good at remembering information.

127

18. I use different learning strategies, depending on the situation.
19. I ask myself if there was an easier way to do things after I finish a task.
20. I have control over how well I learn.
21. I periodically review to help me understand important relationships.
22. I ask myself questions about the material before I begin.
23. I think of several ways to solve a problem and choose the best one.
24. I summarize what I’ve learned after I finish.
25. I ask others for help when I don’t understand something.
26. I can motivate myself to learn when I need to.
27. I am aware of what strategies I use when I study.
28. I find myself analyzing the usefulness of strategies while I study.
29. I use my intellectual strengths to compensate for my weaknesses.
30. I focus on the meaning and significance of new information.
31. I create my own examples to make information more meaningful.
32. I am a good judge of how well I understand something.
33. I find myself using helpful learning strategies automatically.
34. I find myself pausing regularly to check my comprehension.
35. I know when each strategy I use will be most effective.
36. I ask myself how well I accomplish my goals one I’m finished.
37. I draw pictures or diagrams to help me understand while learning.
38. I ask myself if I have considered all the options after I solve a problem.
39. I try to translate new information into my own words.
40. I change strategies when I fail to understand.

128

41. I use the organizational structure of the text to help me learn.
42. I read the instructions carefully before I begin a task.
43. I ask myself if what I’m reading is related to what I already know.
44. I re-evaluate my assumptions when I get confused.
45. I organize my time to best accomplish my goals.
46. I learn more when I am interested in the topic
47. I try to break studying down into smaller steps.
48. I focus on overall meaning rather than specifics.
49. I ask myself questions about how well I am doing while I am learning something
new.
50. I ask myself if I learned as much as I could have once I finish a task.
51. I stop and go back over new information that is not clear.
52. I stop and reread when I get confused.

129

Appendix B
BUREC Ethics Certificate

130

Appendix C
Faculty of Education
270 18th Street
Brandon, Manitoba
Canada R7A 6A9
phone 204-727-9626
brandonu.ca

September 21, 2019
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
RE: Permission to Conduct Research Study
Dear XXXXXX:
I am writing to request permission to conduct a research study within the XXXXXX School
Division. I am currently enrolled in the Master of Education (educational administration) at
Brandon University, and am in the process of writing my master’s thesis under the supervision of
XXXXXX. The study is entitled “Teacher Metacognition: Teacher as Curriculum Maker with
Metacognition at the Centre of the Classroom.”
I am hoping that you and the XXXXXX School Division will grant me permission to contact
principals/designates to assist in inviting 3-5 teachers to complete two months’ worth of
documentation. This study will examine teacher awareness and teacher use of metacognitive
practices. This narrative inquiry research will create a story of each participant’s metacognitive
journey through conversation and analysis, considering the following field texts: data obtained
by a Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) (Schraw & Dennison, 1994) (completed
electronically), a prelude reflective journal (1000-word summary of metacognitive understanding
with prompts provided (approximately 30 minutes), transcripts of interviews (approximately 3060 minutes per participant), and participant reflective journals (optional).
Interested teachers, who have completed Reading Apprenticeship Framework training and who
volunteer to participate, will be given a consent form to be signed (copy enclosed) and returned
to me as researcher at the beginning of the research process. All data will remain confidential.
Should this study be published, all participants will have given consent to the publication and
only aggregated results will be documented. No costs will be incurred by either the XXXXXX
School Division or the individual participants.

131

Your approval to conduct this study will be greatly appreciated. I will follow up with a
telephone call next week and would be happy to answer any questions or concerns that you may
have at that time. You may contact me at my email address: XXXXXX
If you agree, kindly sign below and return the signed form in the enclosed self-addressed
envelope. Alternatively, kindly submit a signed letter of permission on your institution’s
letterhead acknowledging your consent and permission for me to conduct this study within
XXXXXX School Division. Please include the names and contact information for the
principals/designates that could assist with inviting teachers for this study.
Sincerely,
Barbara Engel
Primary Researcher
Enclosures
Metacognitive Awareness Inventory
Interview Questions and Reflective Journal Prompts
Copy of Participant’s Consent Form
cc: XXXXXX, Brandon University Faculty Advisor
Approved by:
__________________________________
Print your name.

__________________________
Signature

Principal/Designate

Contact Information

132

________
Date

Appendix D
Prelude reflective journal (to be used to create 1000-word reflection):
While thinking about the next two weeks of implementing metacognitive strategies in your
classroom, please reflect on these prompts and write 1000-word reflective journal. You do
not have to use these questions, however if you wish you might choose one or two to
activate your writing.
1.

Describe some of the activation activities that you use and explain why you use them.

2.

What is your expectation of student reading during class time?

3.

How do you want your own reading to look like in the classroom?

4.

What are the essential observations you make while students are engaged in reading

during your class?
5.

Describe how you use questioning to activate conversation in a group.

6.

What do you see or hear that would engage you to start a metacognitive conversation

with a student?
7.

Think of a planning time. How do you pick a strategy and explain why you picked that

strategy?
8.

How do you define metacognition? How do you use it in your classroom?

Interview questions:
1. Think about a silent reading time within the past two weeks! Describe the activity
in the classroom? What were you doing? What were the students doing?
2. Think of a time that you were demonstrating the metacognitive strategy you choose
to the class. Share how this demonstration unfolded.
3. Think of a specific activation strategy that you have used and tell me the story of
how it unfolded in the classroom.
4. Thinking about the last two weeks. What did a class conversation look like in your
classroom? How do you set the stage for a class discussion?

133

5. Tell me about a time that you read to the class, and included your metacognition.
How did that go?
6. Think of a time when a student displayed a misunderstanding. What happened?
Tell me the story of this memory.
7. Imagine that you and your students were having a perfect learning scenario. Tell
me what that looks like and feels like for you.
8. Think of a time you were demonstrating a debugging strategy. Tell me the story of
how that came about and how it unfolded.
9. How long have you been implementing metacognition into your classroom routines?
10. What are the aspects of implementing metacognition into the classroom that you
believe benefit yourself and your students?
The journal package:
The journal package will be given as an invitation to the participants to make personal
journal reflections during the two weeks. The prompts provided with the journal package
will include:
•

Do I see patterns in what the students are saying and doing?

•

Was the strategy I used effective for this assignment?

•

How did my mindset affect how I approached today’s lesson?

•

Is this strategy improving the learning environment?

•

Did I do an effective job of communicating my thinking to my students?

•

Have I demonstrated my strengths and weakness to my students?

•

How am I using my strengths to benefit my students in their metacognitive journey?

134

Appendix E
BRANDON UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH PROJECT
Project Title: Teacher Metacognition: Teacher as Curriculum Maker with Metacognition at the centre of the
Classroom.
Principal Investigator: Barbara Engel, Teacher at Strathmillan School, St. James-Assiniboia School Division,
Winnipeg, MB; Graduate student at Brandon University, Department of Ed.
204-999-8049 bengel@sjsd.net
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Marion Terry, Professor of Education at Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba;
204-727-9793
Site:_____________, MB
Purpose: This is an invitation to participate in a research study under the direction of Barbara Engel, graduate
student at Brandon University. The purpose of this study is to explore how the teachers’ understanding of
metacognition influences the development of metacognitive strategies and the metacognitive conversation as
these are implemented in their classrooms. The results of this study may influence teachers’ perspectives and
goal setting, improve teaching methods, help students come to a better understanding of their metacognition,
create better relationships, and ultimately improve student achievement.
Procedures: 5 teachers will participate in the research project. The total time the researcher will be in contact
with the teacher participants is approximately two months. This study will examine teacher awareness and
teacher use of metacognitive practices. This narrative inquiry research will create a story through conversation
and analysis, considering the following field text: data obtained by a Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI)
(Schraw & Dennison, 1994) (completed electronically), a 1000-word summary of metacognitive understanding
with prompts provided (approximately 30 minutes), transcripts of an interview (approximately 30-60 minutes
per participant), and participant reflective journals (optional). All interviews and reflections will be recorded
digitally, by paper or by audio.
Possible Risks/ Discomforts: We are dealing with teachers and their daily routines. Exploring and explaining
how one is thinking means that teachers are taking risks; however, this study is deemed minimal risk because
expectations are clear and safety procedures around keeping records and writings anonymous will be followed.
Teachers may opt out at any time, because their participation is voluntary. Recognition that everyone in the
study is at a different place of understanding is a part of the individual story while creating this narrative
inquiry.
Possible Benefits: This research may lead to stronger teacher practice, a better understanding of metacognition,
higher student engagement, and more effective teaching methods – all of which may increase student
achievement.
Voluntary Participation: Your participation in this study is voluntary, and you may decide not to participate
without penalty or loss of benefits at any time. If you choose to leave the study, please contact Barbara Engel at
the above contact information.
Financial Considerations: There are no financial considerations for this study.
Data Collection: The data will be collected via audio, digitally transcriptions of interviews, and other written
documents such as journals. The interview transcripts will be sent to the individual participants for additions or
changes before Barbara Engel, Principal Investigator, has prepared the final report.

135

Confidentiality: The researcher will store all data digitally and in written form in a secure fashion. All consent
forms will be kept separate from the data collected. Barbara Engel will be the sole investigator to use all or any
materials. Pseudonyms will be used to protect individual identities in the final report.
Publications: The primary publication will be Barbara Engel’s thesis report. By signing this consent form, you
are also giving her permission to share the research results in the form of academic papers, conference reports,
and other presentations. At no time will individual identities be disclosed.
If you should have any questions about the above research project, please contact the principal investigator,
Barbara Engel at bengel@sjsd.net. You may also call at 204-888-8049.
You may also contact the supervisors of the primary investigator: Dr. Marion Terry, Brandon University 204-7279793; or BUREC at 204-727-9712; burec@brandonu.ca
Statement of Consent:
“I have read the above description of the research study, and I understand it in full. I have been informed of the
risks, and benefits involved. All of my questions have been answered to my satisfaction. To my understanding,
any further questions I may have will be answered by the primary researcher of this study. I voluntarily agree to
participate in this study. By signing this form, I have not waived any of my legal rights to which I would
otherwise be entitled. I will be given a copy of this statement.”
_______________________
Print Name of Subject

__________________________
Signature

________________________
Date

________________________
Print Name of Investigator

_____________________________
Signature

__________________________
Date

Reference
Remler, D. K., & van Ryzin, G. G. (2015). Research methods in practice: Strategies for description and causation
(2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

136

Appendix F
Letter to Principal/Designate
[BU Letterhead]
September, 2019
RE: Request for teacher names and email addresses for potential participation in a research study
Dear Principal/Designate:
Your school division superintendent has forwarded your name to me. I am writing to request your recommendation
of teacher names that have participated in the Reading Apprenticeship training. I am currently enrolled in the
Master of Education (educational administration) at Brandon University, and am in the process of writing my
master’s thesis. The study is entitled “Teacher Metacognition: Teacher as Curriculum Maker with Metacognition at
the Centre of the Classroom.”
I hope that you can help me to recruit 5 teachers to complete two months’ worth of documentation. Interested
teachers, who volunteer to participate, will be given a consent form to be signed (copy enclosed) and returned to the
primary researcher at the beginning of the research process. Therefore, an email address is required for me to
forward this communication. By signing this letter, you are giving me permission to contact the individuals listed.
The total time I, the researcher, will be in contact with the teacher participants is approximately two months. This
study will examine teacher awareness and teacher use of metacognitive practices. This narrative inquiry research
will create a story through conversation and analysis considering the following field text: data obtained by a
Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) (Schraw & Dennison, 1994) (completed electronically), a prelude
reflective journal (1000-word summary of metacognitive understanding with prompts provided (approximately 30
minutes), transcripts of interviews (approximately 30-60 minutes per participant), and participant reflective journals
(optional).
All data will remain confidential. Should this study be published, all participants will have given consent to the
publication and only aggregated results will be documented. No costs will be incurred by either the xxxxxxxxxx
School Division or the individual participants.
If you have names of teachers who have participated in the Reading Apprenticeship training and you think that they
would be interested in participating in this research, please contact me at my email address:
ENGELB77@BrandonU.CA.
Sincerely,
Barbara Engel
Primary Researcher
Enclosures
Metacognitive Awareness Inventory
Interview questions
Copy of Participant’s Consent Form
cc: Dr. M. Terry, Brandon University Faculty Advisor

137

Approved by:
__________________________________
______________________________
Print your name.
Signature

_________
Date

I am asking for 10 names, and I will randomly pick 5. Choosing from 10 names will ensure
confidentiality, because I am the only person who will know which individual teachers have
consented.
Teacher Name

Email Address

138

Appendix G
Participant’s Letter of Invitation
[BU Letterhead]
September, 2019
RE: Request to participate in Master’s Thesis research.
Dear

:

I am writing to request your participation in a research study within xxxxxxxxxx School Division. Your
principal/designate has forwarded your name to me because of your participation in the Reading Apprenticeship
training. I am currently enrolled in the Master of Education (educational administration) at Brandon University, and
am in the process of writing my master’s thesis. The study is entitled “Teacher Metacognition: Teacher as
Curriculum Maker with Metacognition at the Centre of the Classroom.”
I hope that you will consider being a part of a collection of documentation to create story. Due to the nature of this
study, only your teacher voice will be recorded. I have attached a consent form to be signed and returned to me if
you are willing to participate.
The total time that I will be in contact with you is approximately three weeks to two months. This study will
examine teacher awareness and teacher use of metacognitive practices. This narrative inquiry research will create a
story through observations and analysis considering the following field text: data obtained by a Metacognitive
Awareness Inventory (MAI) (Schraw & Dennison, 1994) (completed electronically), a 1000-word summary of
metacognitive understanding with prompts provided (approximately 30 minutes), transcripts of interviews
(approximately 30-60 minutes), and participant reflective journals (optional).
This research will create a story of your individual internal dialogue, providing data that will investigate
metacognitive understanding within teachers. The results of this study will remain confidential, because
pseudonyms will be used to protect individual identities. Should this study be published, all participants will have
given consent to the publication and only aggregated results will be documented. No costs will be incurred by either
the School Division or the individual participants.
Your approval to be a participant will be greatly appreciated. I will follow up with a telephone call next week and
would be happy to answer any questions or concerns that you may have at that time. You may contact me at my
email address: ENGELB77@BrandonU.CA.
If you agree, kindly sign the consent form and return it in the enclosed self-addressed envelope.
Sincerely,
Barbara Engel
Primary Researcher
Enclosures
Consent Form
cc: Dr. M. Terry, Brandon University Faculty Advisor

139

Appendix H
Participant’s Letter (Phase One)
[BU Letterhead]
Date
Participant’s name
Participant’s address
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
RE: Phase One of Teacher Metacognition: Teacher as Curriculum Maker with Metacognition at the
Centre of the Classroom
Dear

:

Thank you for volunteering to participate in the study entitled Teacher Metacognition: Teacher as
Curriculum Maker with Metacognition at the Centre of the Classroom.
I realize your motivation is for the learning within your students, and it is my hope that together you and I
will also learn and grow, as we better understand how teacher metacognition can impact our personal
practical knowledge.
The purpose of this study is to capture your internal dialogue so that we can create your individual
metacognitive story.
The process will require you to complete the following:
•
•
•

Follow this link and complete a Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) (MIA Electronic
Survey Link) this will take you approximately 4 minutes.
When your MAI is completed electronically, I will contact you to set up the two week
implementation (Phase two).
Prelude reflection: Write a 1000 words or less summarizing the strategies that you have used/are
using and a brief explanation of why you have chosen to use these strategies. Email this
summary to me at bengel2b9@gmail.com. Prompts for the reflection are provided.

Again, thank you for your participation; I look forward to meeting you!
Barbara Engel
Teacher and Graduate Student at BU
19 Peary Cres.
Winnipeg, MB
R3K 0P9
Enclosures
Prompts for Prelude Reflection

140

Appendix I
Participant’s Letter (Phase Two)
[BU Letterhead]
Date
Participant’s name
Participant’s address
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
RE: Phase Two of Teacher Metacognition: Teacher as Curriculum Maker with Metacognition at the Centre of the
Classroom
Dear

:

Thank you for your commitment to sharing your metacognitive journey. Phase Two of the research has the goal of
collecting your metacognitive reflections as you implement your choice of metacognitive strategy(ies) within your
classroom.
The process will require you to complete the following:
•
•
•

•

Pick one or two metacognitive strategies from the list included. If you have a strategy that is not on the list
please email me at bengel2b9@gmail.com to confirm the strategy(ies) you wish to implement.
When you have made your selection, implement the strategies in the routines of your classroom for two
weeks.
Reflective Journal (Optional) During these two weeks, I invite you to journal using the prompts provided in
the reflective journal attachment (or you may use free style). This is optional as I believe that this writing
can assist you in tracking your thinking, however, I also understand that journaling may not be a routine in
your life. If you do decide to journal, please know that it can be in free form. This writing may help you
make other decisions and it may help attain positive or negative attributes that can be of great interest in
this study. You may wish to complete all prompts or only the ones that you make a connection with. The
intent of the journal is to also benefit you, as well as help give more insight to your metacognitive story for
this research. Reflective Journals will be collected during interview appointments or may be emails
electronically to the above email.
Link to make an interview date on Doodle.

Again, thank you for your participation; I look forward to our ongoing work together!
Barbara Engel
Teacher and Graduate Student at BU
19 Peary Cres.
Winnipeg, MB
R3K 0P9
Enclosures
List of strategies
Reflective journal prompts

141

List of Strategies
Metacognitive Strategies
Metacognitive strategies include having purposeful conversations around reading strategies
such as previewing the text, setting a purpose for reading, connecting to prior knowledge,
predicting new learning, and developing new vocabulary. During a reading, strategies include
monitoring one’s comprehension, determining main ideas and details, making double-entry
journals, and visualizing. After-reading strategies include organizing information, classifying
information summarizing new learning, making and supporting inferences, and drawing and
supporting conclusions (Robb, Baumann, Fuhler, & Kindig, 2005). Schoenbach, Greenleaf, and
Murphy (2012) explore how this process of talking or recording about one’s thinking demystifies
the reading progress (p. 22). This analogy taps into personal observations when Schoenbach et
al. proclaim, “Most of what happens with texts in classrooms gives students the mistaken
impression that reading comprehension happens by magic” (p. 22). Metacognitive conversations
and strategies help students see “what happens inside the mind of a more proficient reader,
someone who is willing to make the invisible visible by externalizing his or her mental activity”
(pp. 22-23). Specific metacognitive strategies used in this study that activate the metacognitive
funnel are as follows: talking to the text, think-a-loud, double-entry logs, and LINK (list, inquire,
notes, know).
The Metacognitive Funnel
The metacognitive funnel is an excellent metaphor that helps students and teachers "think
about and talk about the ways readers' attention may shift as they read any given text"
(Schoenbach et al., 2012, p. 128). The funnel demonstrates the ways an individuals'
metacognitive awareness increases as they become more aware of their thinking while they
engage in reading.
Directing the students to focus on reading starts with the teacher modelling various
strategies that help to focus the students' awareness. These strategies can be as simple as probing
questions or, as the RAF supports, these strategies become the reading routines within the
classroom. An example of a probing question could be "This map might help me understand the
content of the paragraph next to it!" An example of a reading routine that helps to focus the
students' awareness is a double-entry reading log (which is defined later). With the
metacognitive funnel in mind, the teacher intentionally plans to build the repertoire of reading
strategies throughout the school year, with the hope that the students begin activating the
thinking awareness more independently as the year progresses.
Talking to the Text
Talking to the text is a routine that makes time for the students to individually read, and
record their thinking before sharing with a small group. The teacher first must model talking to
the text by speaking his/her thinking while recording on the text page and using a document
reader so that the learners can watch the process of recording thoughts. The students then record
their thinking by writing in the margins, circling important words or words that confuse, asking
questions, or making predictions. The reader can make text-to-text connections; they can make
clarifications; they can make markings that point out confusion so that when they talk to a group
about the reading. These annotations can help guide their metacognitive conversation that will
lead to a deeper comprehension of the text.

142

Think-a-loud
Think-a-loud inquiry is a routine that requires a pair of learners to engage in reading
together. While one person reads and talks about the reading and his/her thinking, the partner
records what is said on a copy of the text. The pair then join with another pair, and together the
four learners discuss the reading by having the recorder share what the individual readers thought
while they were reading. Then the readers clarify or add more insight.
Double-entry Logs
Double-entry logs are writing routines that have learners record their thinking while they
read, on a separate paper that has two columns: the left column is for recording the evidence
(what they saw, heard, or read – such as a quotation) and the right column for recording their
thinking, reasoning, or question. The double-entry logs promote critical thinking by tracking the
learners’ thinking as they read. The repeated use of double-entry logs promotes awareness of the
learners’ thinking processes, and the logs also support the teacher’s ability to track the progress
of the learners' reading strategies.
LINK
LINK is an acronym for List, Inquire, Notes, Know, which is a group discussion prereading and during-reading strategy that has the learners chunk their thinking and record it based
on group and individual work. The first step is to divide the class into groups of about four
students, and just as the acronym says, have them List what they already know about the given
topic. After this discussion around the list, the teacher then gives the students time to write down
what they know. This solitary writing time is essential for making connections to the students’
schema. Next, the group members ask each other questions about what was listed (Inquire).
Then the learners record all the questions. Next, the students silently read the selected text and
annotate while they read. After reading, the group comes together again, and using the inquiry
questions looks for the answers within the reading to discuss the connections made. For
example, teachers may prompt the students by saying, "Look for answers to our inquiry
questions, or connections to what you already know or heard about in our discussion, and record
new questions that arose as you read." This discussion is then followed by the individual
students making Notes.Finally, the teacher prompts the learners to think and record what they
now Know about the topic. The teacher encourages the learners to compare their developing
understanding now, after the discussion and reading, to what they knew before the discussion
and reading. The learners then write a short explanation describing how their understanding has
changed as a result of the discussion and readings

143

Appendix J
Participant’s email (Phase Three)
Date
Participant’s name
Participant’s address
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
RE: Phase Three of Teacher Metacognition: Teacher as Curriculum Maker with Metacognition at
the Centre of the Classroom
Dear

:

Thank you for your commitment to sharing your metacognitive journey. Phase Three of the
research has the goal of making the final collection of your metacognitive reflections.
The process will require you to complete the following:
•

Confirm your interview time via Doodle link. If you wish to have a face-to-face
interview, please select a private room for the allotted time to reduce or eliminate
interruptions (20-30 minutes will be required). <<Doodle link here>>

After we have completed the interview, the collection of data is complete! I have immense
gratitude for your willingness to share your metacognitive voice.

Barbara Engel
Teacher and Graduate Student at BU
19 Peary Cres.
Winnipeg, MB
R3K 0P9

144

Appendix K
Participant’s Letter (Phase Four)
[BU Letterhead]
Date
Participant’s name
Participant’s address
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
RE: Phase Four of Teacher Metacognition: Teacher as Curriculum Maker with Metacognition at
the Centre of the Classroom
Dear

:

Thank you for your continued commitment of sharing your metacognitive journey. Phase Four
of the research has the goal of sharing your metacognitive reflections by allowing you to read the
direct transcripts of your interviews, journals (if provided), and results of your MAI results.
This communication is to ensure trust between you, the participant and myself. As the principle
investigator of this research, I am approaching the telling of your metacognitive story through
the lens of a narrative inquirer. The inspiration of sharing of the transcriptions comes from
Clandinin and Connelly’s (2000) book Narrative Inquiry.
Part of the narrative inquirer’s doubts come from understanding that they need to write
about people, places, and things as becoming rather than being. Their task is not so much
to say that people, places and things are this way or that way but that they have a
narrative history and a moving forward. The narrative research text is fundamentally a
temporal text – about what has been, what is now, and what is becoming. (p. 146)
Therefore, it is with continued gratitude that I conclude my communication with you by saying
thank you for your insights. I would be happy to share the finished thesis with you if you are
interested.
Again, thank you for your participation; It has been a pleasure listening and learning with you!

Barbara Engel
Teacher and Graduate Student at BU
19 Peary Cres.
Winnipeg, MB
R3K 0P9

145